CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Old School House and Courtyard Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found appropriate risk assessments, enough staff, safeguarding systems and suitable infection control arrangements. Some medicine recording issues and minor environmental repairs were identified.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had been without a registered manager since June 2022. Inspectors also found an open culture, positive staff morale and governance systems that were supporting improvement.
What inspectors found, August 2022
The Old School House and Courtyard Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support but rated well-led Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 19 July 2022 and checked Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
Safe was rated Good. Risks were assessed, staffing was considered sufficient, safeguarding systems were in place and infection control arrangements were mostly suitable. Some medicine recording problems were found, but the manager acted immediately and introduced daily audits. Minor repairs and decorating were also needed.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home had no registered manager, although a new manager had started and planned to apply for registration. Inspectors found a positive, open culture and systems that were driving improvement.
The overall rating was Good. This included ratings from the previous inspection for areas not checked this time. The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, and inspectors said the earlier breaches had been addressed.
Risk management
People's risks were assessed and plans were in place to reduce those risks. Staff said they had enough information to provide safe care.
“Risks associated with people's care had been identified and plans were in place to minimise risk occurring.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care and observed staff engaging positively with people. Recruitment procedures were followed.
“There were enough staff to ensure people received safe care.” from the report
Positive culture
People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback. Inspectors described the culture as open, person-centred and supportive.
“The provider had an open and honest culture.” from the report
Family and staff involvement
The provider used questionnaires, surveys and team meetings to gather views. Staff said they could discuss issues and that things had improved.
“The provider sought feedback from people and relatives through questionnaires and surveys to improve the service.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home had been without a registered manager since June 2022. A new manager had started but had not yet applied to register with the CQC.
“The service has been without a registered manager since June 2022.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingInspectors found some recording problems with medicines. These were addressed immediately through a new daily audit system.
“During the inspection we identified some recording issues, the manager acted immediately and implemented a daily audit system.” from the report
Repairs and decorating
minorSome minor repairs and decorating were needed. The provider had an action plan and timescales for the work.
“The environment was in need of minor repairs and decorating work.” from the report
- 01Is the manager now registered with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home if registration is still pending?
- 02What medicine recording problems were found, and what have the daily audits shown since the inspection?
- 03Which repairs and decorating works were identified, and have they all been completed?
- 04How are accidents, incidents and lessons learned reviewed now?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in checking whether improvements are working?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 August 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks and management systems were not always dealt with safely or promptly.
The focused inspection took place on 9 and 11 February 2021. One inspector spoke with staff and relatives, observed care, checked parts of the home and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home had enough staff, and staff were kind and caring. Medicines were administered as prescribed, safeguarding concerns were reported, and infection control was mostly in line with government guidance. However, one person had not fully completed their isolation period.
Inspectors found delays in dealing with fire safety issues and gaps in assessing and monitoring risks. Quality checks and records were not reliable, and changes in managers had affected staff morale and communication.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. This inspection looked only at Safe and Well-led. Ratings for the other key questions were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Kind staff
Staff were described as kind and caring, with a positive attitude towards supporting people.
“Staff were kind and caring and had a positive attitude when supporting people.” from the report
Staffing levels
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely and promptly. Agency staff were used when needed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely and in a timely manner.” from the report
Medicines support
Medicines were given as prescribed. Staff supported people calmly, sought consent and respected refusals.
“People were supported with their medicines in a calm and caring manner.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff had safeguarding training and reported concerns appropriately to the local authority.
“Staff followed the provider's processes and appropriately reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority.” from the report
Fire and personal safety risks
seriousSome fire exit doors needed magnetic locks, but the work was not completed promptly. A person's dehydration risk had also not been properly assessed or monitored.
“The failure to ensure the safety of the service and appropriately assess and manage risks placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Weak quality checks and records
seriousThe provider's checks did not reliably identify or fix problems. Records and analysis of incidents were incomplete or not sufficiently detailed.
“Robust quality assurance systems were not always in place or effectively operated.” from the report
Frequent management changes
needs fixingThe home had been managed by four different managers since the previous inspection. Staff reported low morale and poor communication.
“Relatives told us they were concerned by regular changes in the management team, as the service had been managed by four different managers since the last inspection.” from the report
Isolation process
needs fixingProcesses for isolating new residents and people returning from hospital were in place, but one person had not completed the full isolation period.
“However, we found one person had not fully completed their isolation period.” from the report
- 01Have the fire exit door issues been fully fixed, and how are fire safety actions now tracked?
- 02How do you assess and monitor residents' risks, including dehydration and fluid intake?
- 03What quality checks are now in place to analyse accidents and prevent them happening again?
- 04Who is currently managing the home, and how are staff kept informed when management changes?
- 05How do you make sure new residents and people returning from hospital complete the required isolation period?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of The Old School House and Courtyard Nursing Home
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Old School House and Courtyard Nursing Home →
- April 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Old School House and Courtyard Nursing Home →
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.