CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Willows and Rosehill, Drummond Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Willows and Rosehill, Drummond Court: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found infection-control gaps during a coronavirus outbreak, alongside good testing and PPE arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 13 January 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control because the home had a coronavirus outbreak.
The inspectors were not assured that the layout and hygiene practices always supported safety. Handwashing and hand sanitiser use were inconsistent, and visitors were not always screened or given clear instructions.
The inspectors were assured about testing, the safe use of PPE, shielding, social distancing, safe admissions and the infection-control policy. The provider took immediate action over some problems.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a rated score for Safe.
Testing during the outbreak
The home used the government testing scheme, which helped it identify an outbreak promptly. It also worked with the local authority infection-control team and other health professionals.
“The service was accessing the government testing scheme which assisted them to promptly identify an outbreak.” from the report
PPE supply and use
Inspectors found a plentiful supply of PPE and were assured that it was being used safely and effectively. A shortfall in disposal was corrected immediately.
“There was a plentiful supply of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Keeping families connected
Staff supported people to stay in contact with family and friends by phone and online.
“Staff helped people to maintain links with their family and friends by phone and on-line.” from the report
Inconsistent hand hygiene
seriousStaff did not always use hand sanitiser or wash their hands when moving between areas. Inspectors said this created a risk of infections, including COVID-19, spreading.
“Staff did not always use hand sanitiser or carry out handwashing when entering and exiting areas across the site.” from the report
Visitor controls were not consistent
seriousVisitors were not always screened for symptoms or given clear instructions about infection-control procedures. Signage and instructions at the visitor centre were lacking.
“Visitors to the service were not always screened for symptoms of acute respiratory infection or provided with guidance as to any infection prevention control protocols.” from the report
- 01What immediate changes were made to handwashing and hand-sanitiser arrangements after the inspection?
- 02How do you now screen visitors for symptoms before they enter?
- 03What signs and written instructions are now displayed for visitors at the visitor centre?
- 04How do you check that PPE is disposed of safely?
- 05What arrangements are in place for testing and managing any future outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the other four CQC questions were not assessed and no overall rating was given. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Drummond Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 14 and 15 November 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, detailed care plans and good support with health, food, activities and personal choices.
The inspection was brought forward after concerns were reported to the local authority. These concerns were not substantiated and had been closed. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in May 2016, particularly in moving and handling, medicines and diabetes support.
Improved safety planning
Moving and handling assessments had become clearer and more detailed. Staff followed the plans to support people safely.
“Detailed risk assessments were now in place within people's care plans.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. Staff listened, reassured people and respected their privacy.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion. It was evident that positive relationships had developed between people and care staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, interests, abilities and support needs. Staff knew the people they supported well.
“Each care plan we viewed had a one page profile providing staff with significant and important information about the person.” from the report
Food and choice
People were involved in choosing and preparing meals. Menus considered people's preferences, cultural choices and dietary needs.
“People were provided with well-balanced and nutritious diets.” from the report
Open management
Managers responded to feedback and used audits, meetings and incident reviews to improve the service.
“There was an open culture at the service.” from the report
Communication books
minorManagers accepted that, on rare occasions, people attended other services without their communication book. They said they would review the checking process.
“They accepted that on rare occasions people had attended other services without their communication book.” from the report
Induction training
needs fixingSome new staff felt their induction training was too short and did not cover everything. Managers investigated this, arranged fuller training and stopped using the trainer concerned.
“New staff were concerned and not content with some of the training they received at induction because it seemed short in time and did not cover all aspects of the subject.” from the report
Contact with relatives
minorOne relative wanted to be contacted more often than the usual six-monthly arrangement. Managers agreed to arrange extra meetings with the person's permission.
“One relative contacted us during the inspection to express their wish to be contacted more frequently by the service than the above arrangement.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure each person takes their communication book when attending another service or visiting family?
- 02What does the current induction training cover, and how do you check that new staff feel confident?
- 03How often will you contact and meet with our family member and relatives involved in their care?
- 04How are diabetes checks, medicines and other health needs recorded and reviewed?
- 05How will you involve the person in reviewing their care plan, activities, meals and future wishes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the whole home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 2017 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 Willows and Rosehill, Drummond Court
5 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Willows and Rosehill, Drummond Court →
- December 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Willows and Rosehill, Drummond Court →
- July 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: Requires improvement
- November 2015Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 October 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.