We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cottenham Court Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cottenham Court Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
There was a purpose-built visiting area in place with a clear screen and sound system with call bell to separate visitors from people. Visitors could visit their family member/friend by appointment. Entrance and exits for visitors were a different door to the main entrance to the home. These visits had been suspended but have just restarted. Visitors would be COVID-19 lateral flow tested just prior to the visit and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) would be made available.
On arrival into the building, external visitors including a health or social care visitor must wait to enter. They would then sign in, sanitise their hands and have their temperature checked. They also must answer a health declaration around COVID-19. There may be a request to take COVID-19 lateral flow test. Or demonstrate the result of their last COVID-19 PCR test. PPE would be made available.
Hand sanitiser facilities and PPE were available at entrances and exits to the home. Hand sanitiser and PPE stations containing stock, were also available in different areas throughout the home. Handwashing competencies took place to make sure staff followed their training.
People at the home and their named relative were communicated to re COVID-19 restrictions and updates including vaccinations via a letter. Phone calls and video calls were also available to people to stay in contact with friends and family. New computer tablets had been purchased to help people to stay in contact.
Communal furniture had been spread out to promote social distancing. Communal areas were uncluttered to aid with effective cleaning and windows were open to promote good ventilation.
Nurses at the home had been asked to take on district nurses delegated tasks for people on the residential areas of the home during COVID-19.
There were three infection control champions at the home.
Cottenham Court accommodates up to 62 people in one adapted building over two floors. They provide nursing care and people who are living with dementia
We inspected the home on 7 November 2017. The inspection was unannounced. There were 54 people living in the service on the day of our inspection.
The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers (‘the provider’) they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
In December 2015 we conducted an inspection of the home. We rated the service as ‘good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good’.
There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet their care and support needs. Staff worked well together in a mutually supportive way and communicated effectively, within the team and with external agencies. Training and supervision systems were in place to provide staff with the knowledge and skills they required to meet people’s needs effectively.
There was a friendly, relaxed atmosphere and staff were kind and attentive in their approach. People were provided with food and drink of good quality that met their individual needs and preferences. People were supported to take part in activities that promoted their emotional, physical and spiritual well-being.
People’s medicines were managed safely and staff worked closely with local healthcare services to ensure people had access to any specialist support they required. Systems were in place to ensure effective infection prevention and control.
People’s individual risk assessments were reviewed and updated to take account of changes in their needs. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns to keep people safe from harm. There was evidence of that the service learnt from significant incidents and events. Any concerns or complaints were handled effectively.
Care plans were detailed and provided staff with the current information they required to meet people's needs. They also contained detailed information of the person wishes at the end of their life
Staff supported people to make everyday decisions in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored and where needed improvements were made. We found that people who lived at the service and their visitors/relatives were encouraged to share their views and give feedback about the quality of the care and support provided.
Cottenham Court Residential and Nursing Home provides accommodation, personal care and nursing care for up to 62 older people including those living with dementia. Accommodation is located over two floors. There were 52 people living in the home when we visited.
This inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 December 2015.
The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. Staff had received training and had an understanding to ensure that where people lacked the capacity to make decisions they were supported to make decisions that were in their best interests. People were only deprived of their liberty where this was lawful.
The provider had a robust recruitment process in place and staff were only employed within the home after all essential safety checks had been satisfactorily completed.
People’s privacy and dignity were respected at all times. Staff were seen to knock on the person’s bedroom door and wait for a response before entering and closing the door to protect people’s dignity when providing personal care.
People’s health, care and nutritional needs were effectively met. People were provided with a varied, balanced diet and staff were aware of people’s dietary needs. Staff referred people appropriately to healthcare professionals. People received their prescribed medicines and medicines were stored in a safe way.
Care records we looked at and people who we spoke with showed us that wherever possible people were involved in the planning of their care.
The provider had an effective complaints process in place which was accessible to people, relatives and others who used or visited the service.
The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to identify areas for improvement and appropriate action to address any identified concerns. Audits, completed by the provider and registered manager, showed the subsequent actions taken, which helped drive improvements in the home.
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our discussions with fourteen people who use the service, four visitors, eight staff and the registered manager.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by caring and attentive staff. We saw staff that showed patience and gave encouragement to people when providing care and support. People we spoke with told us that the staff were very caring and gave them time to be as independent as possible. Throughout our inspection, we heard lots of chatter and laughter and saw that staff and people had a good rapport between them.
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs including their likes and dislikes, had been recorded and support had been provided by staff in accordance with their wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People we spoke with told us they had no complaints to make about the service and that they were extremely happy with the care and support they received.
There were effective arrangements in place to ensure people's consent was obtained prior to their care and support being provided by staff.
There were effective ways for gaining people's views about the care and support they received. Any improvements to the service required were actioned appropriately.
Is the service safe?
We found there were enough staff available to meet people's needs.
Staff were knowledgeable about the care and support people required and the care records were detailed to ensure that people received consistent care.
We found the manager had systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents. This reduced the risks to people and helped them improve the service.
Potential risks to people had been identified and recorded clearly in their care records. We saw that these risks had been reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that people were kept safe.
Regular gas, electrical and fire safety checks had been undertaken. This ensured the safety of people who lived within the home, their visitors and staff.
Is the service effective?
People we spoke with were very happy with the care they received. The care records provided detailed information to ensure people received care and support in a consistent way.
Is the service well led?
A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection. Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported in their work.
The provider had effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service people received.
We found the provider was compliant with the regulations in the outcomes we assessed. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Care plans that we looked at were detailed and people were aware of the content of their plans. We saw that risk assessments were in place to protect people and that people had access to external health care professionals when needed.
A varied programme of activities was available to people living in the home, with regular trips and entertainment taking place. Photographs on display in the home showed people undertaking activities.
All areas of the home were visibly clean. People praised the cleanliness of the home. One person told us, 'The cleaning staff do a great job, everywhere is always spotlessly clean'.
We found that the provider was compliant in all the outcomes we assessed: evidence showed that this was a well run, clean and happy home staffed by caring workers who respected the people they supported.
We saw a new format of care plans that made them clear and accessible for people who use the service and their relatives. We spoke with five people and all confirmed that they were aware of their regular care plan reviews.
All five people who we spoke with told us that staff were, 'excellent, polite and helpful'. Two people told us that they felt, 'relaxed and safe'. One person said: 'I feel much better here than being alone where I used to live.'
People confirmed that they could make choices. One person stated: 'There are no limits on what we can do.' They stated that they could see other medical professionals, 'If need be.' We saw records of people's contacts with external health and medical professionals.
Four people told us that they felt safe and protected. The manager and the staff were fully aware of and respected the safeguarding procedure.
We spoke with three staff members who all felt they were well supported. One, relatively new staff member confirmed that they had received their supervision and praised the training they had attended.
We saw records of supervisions, training, five care plans and letters inviting people's relatives to care plan reviews. All records were up to date and appropriately stored.
We spoke with a number of visiting health care professionals who knew the home well including GPs, district nurses and other specialist nurses. They told us that they received appropriate referrals from the home and that they had no specific concerns about the quality of care people received there. One GP described the home as, 'Excellent'. Visiting professionals described staff as knowledgeable and competent and all but one told us they would recommend the home for their relatives.
Overall people received a good quality of care at the home, however we identified that minor improvements were needed to increase people's involvement in reviewing their care; the support and supervision of the staff who looked after them and the environment in which they lived.
People liked the meals that were offered and they had a choice each day. The home was usually fresh and clean. We were told that people living at the home were able to say something if they were not happy and they confirmed they would speak to a member of staff.