We carried out a review of the data available to us about China Cottage 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 China Cottage Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
A robust screening process was in place for all essential visitors to the home. This included completion of a health screening questionnaire, temperature check, evidence of a recent lateral flow test and a vaccination check for visiting professionals.
Infection prevention control (IPC) signs were clearly displayed throughout the home to advise people about the correct infection control procedures.
There was a plentiful supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) available. We saw PPE being correctly used by staff. Staff had completed training in infection control and hand washing.
The home was accessing regular COVID-19 testing for staff and residents. All staff and residents had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
Visiting was conducted in line with current government guidance.
We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider had installed a patrician leading into an area of a small lounge. The patrician had a perspex screen to enable visitors to see the relatives without entering the main areas of the home. A separate entrance was used to access the area. A booking system ensured there was enough time between visits to enable staff to sanitise the area. Alternative arrangements were in place for relatives to have conversations with their loved ones. This was via the internet or by telephone. New visiting arrangements are to commence on 8 March 2021 where relatives can visit their loved one’s in their bedroom, escorted to the bedroom by a designated member of staff to minimise contact with others such as staff and people who used the service.
The provider followed current guidance when admitting new people into the service. People were not accepted into the service without a negative covid-19 test result. They were then isolated for 14 days to prevent any possible risk of cross-infection.
The provider had identified an area for staff to use to change their clothing into staff uniform prior to the start of their shift. Staff had received donning/doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) and followed current guidance on the use of PPE. Staff had received online IPC training and additional training provided by the NHS. Staff had a covid-19 lateral flow tests 3 times each week and they had all received their first covid-19 vaccination. People who used the service have had their first covid-19 vaccination which they received at the service from their local GP. The provider followed current guidance if a staff member or a person who used the service became symptomatic or had a positive covid-19 test.
China Cottage is a care home situated in Carcroft, Doncaster. The care home is registered to accommodate up to 33 people in one adapted building. The service is provided by Doncaster Property Investment Fund Limited. At the time of the inspection the home was providing residential care for 30 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Without exception all the people and relatives we spoke with praised the home. People told us they felt safe and well cared for. People's preferences were respected, and staff were sensitive and attentive to people's needs. Staff were seen to be kind, caring and friendly: we heard staff engaging people in conversation and heard laughter between them. It was clear staff knew people and their relatives well. Risk assessments provided staff with enough guidance and direction to provide person-centred care and support.
There were enough numbers of care staff employed to ensure people's needs were met. Staff had time to sit and engage people in conversation and to support people's involvement in social activities. Recruitment practices were safe, however following our advice, the provider made a minor change to the recruitment process to further ensure only suitable people were employed. Staff received the training, supervision and support they required for their role.
The staff team worked hard to promote people's dignity and prevent people from becoming socially isolated within the care home. Respect and dignity were values upheld by the staff and role modelled by the registered manager and senior staff. There were activities provided for people. Resources were available for people to take part in art and crafts and some people went out into the local community.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People and relatives told us they felt “listened to” and said they regularly met with the staff and the registered manager to review their care.
Complaints were recorded, and responses were seen. The regional manager told us there were no on-going complaints at the time of this inspection. A visiting healthcare professional told us, "We are not concerned about this service at all, the staff provide good care and call us appropriately and in a timely manner. We all like to come here."
Quality assurance systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. Each person had a care plan which detailed their care and support needs and what staff needed to do to assist them. The registered manager was in the process of reorganising the care plans to make them more ‘user friendly.’ The registered manager was committed to improving the records to reflect the good care we observed.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update: The last rating for this service was good (published 6 February 2017)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘China Cottage Nursing Home’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’
China Cottage Nursing Home is a care home situated in Carcroft, Doncaster which is registered to care for up to 33 people. The service is provided by Doncaster Property Investment Fund Limited. At the time of the inspection the home was providing nursing and residential care for 29 people.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment.
People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. From the care records that we looked at, we saw that appropriate referrals had been made to speech and language therapists [SALT] and occupational therapists [OT].
People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. Appropriate arrangements were in place for the recording, safe keeping and safe administration of medicines. Protocols were in place for administering ‘as required’ medication for pain.
There were sufficient staff with the right skills and competencies to meet the assessed needs of people living in the home. There were robust recruitment procedures in place and staff had received formal supervision. Qualified nursing staff had also received some clinical supervision to assess their competencies and skills. Annual appraisals were also taking place. These ensured development and training to support staff to fulfil their roles and responsibilities was identified.
Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a healthy diet, with choices of a good variety of food and drink. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the meals and there was always something on the menu they liked.
We found the home had a friendly relaxed atmosphere which felt homely. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way which encouraged people to express how and when they needed support. People we spoke with told us that they were encouraged to make decisions about their care and how staff were to support them to meet their needs. Without exception relatives told us they were very satisfied with the care provided to their family members.
People were able to access activities. The activity coordinators had developed a plan of activities. People could also access religious services which were held periodically at the home. We saw a range of activities were available to people during the inspection. For example, arts and crafts, bingo, hairdressing and one to one pampering.
Staff told us they felt supported and they could raise any concerns with the registered manager and felt that they were listened to. People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager and the provider. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 6 and 13 October 2014. At which breaches of legal requirements were found. This was because care and treatment was not planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Also the provider did not have effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. The provider did not have effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others. Also people were not protected against the risks associated with the management of medicines. People did not receive care or treatment in accordance with their wishes. People were not always asked for their consent before treatment was given. Comments and complaints people made were not responded to appropriately.
After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches. We undertook a comprehensive inspection on the 14 and 22 April 2015 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met all of the legal requirements.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘China Cottage Nursing Home’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’
China Cottage Nursing Home is a care home situated in Carcroft, Doncaster which is registered to care for 33 people. The service is provided by Doncaster Property Investment Fund Limited. At the time of the inspection the home was providing nursing and residential care for 27 people.
The service did not have a registered manager in post. However the Commission had received an application to register the manager who has been in post since January 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At our inspection on the 14 and 22 April 2015, we found that the provider had followed their plan which they had told us would be completed by the 31 March 2015 and legal requirements had been met.
People were kept safe at the home. However we found that some staff did not have a good understanding of the legal requirements as required under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out how to act to support people who do not have the capacity to make a specific decision.
People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms, so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. The home involved dietician and tissue viability nurses to support people’s health and wellbeing.
We found the home had a friendly relaxed atmosphere which felt homely. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way which encouraged people to express how and when they needed support. People we spoke with told us that they were encouraged to make decisions about their care and how staff were to support them to meet their needs.
Medication systems had improved so that the administration of medicine was safer. However, the incorrect stock count for some medicines meant we could not confirm that people are getting their medication as prescribed. There was still a lack of PRN protocols. We found the systems still needed to be embedded into practice.
There were robust recruitment procedures in place; most staff had received formal supervision since the new manager had been in post. Qualified nursing staff had also received a monthly clinical supervision. Annual appraisals had been scheduled. These ensured development and training to support staff to fulfil their roles and responsibilities was identified.
Staff told us they felt supported and they could raise any concerns with the registered manager and felt that they were listened to. People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it
The provider had introduced new systems to monitor the quality of the service provided. We saw these were more effective. Although improvements were now taking place the provider needs time to ensure the systems are embedded and sustainable.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 6 and 13 October 2014. We last inspected the service in November 2013 and found they were meeting the Regulations we looked at.
China Cottage Nursing Home is a care home situated in Carcroft, Doncaster which is registered to care for 33 people. The service is provided by Doncaster Property Investment Fund Limited. At the time of the inspection the home was providing nursing and residential care for 24 people.
There is a registered manager, however she has been absent from China Cottage since May 2014. 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 provider appointed an acting manager to oversee the day to day management of China Cottage in the absence of the registered manager. She was the deputy manager at the time when the registered manager became unavailable for work.
Following this inspection the provider sent us an action plan which clearly sets out how they will address the breaches we found on inspection. The provider has agreed to send us weekly updates on their progress.
People were not kept safe at the home. There were poor arrangements for the management of medicines that put people at risk of harm. We found that staff did not understand the legal requirements as required under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out how to act to support people who do not have the capacity to make a specific decision.
Although people’s needs had been assessed and care plans developed these did not always adequately guide staff so that they could meet people’s needs effectively. People’s food and fluid intake was not monitored sufficiently. People were not referred to the speech and language therapist in a timely way. The privacy and dignity of people living at the home was not always maintained.
The provider was not adequately monitoring the quality of the service and therefore not effectively checking the care and welfare of people using the service. In addition to this the provider had failed to provide information requested by CQC about the service.
Staff were recruited safely although they did not receive formal supervision regularly, as required by the provider’s policy. Clinical supervision did not take place. This is required by relevant professional bodies to ensure their continued fitness to practice. There were no records to confirm competency checks had taken place in areas such as medication administration. There were not always enough staff to provide people with individual support. The provider did not have a system to assess staffing levels and make changes when people’s needs changed.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. ‘Please note that the summary section will be used to populate the CQC website. Providers will be asked to share this section with the people who use their service and the staff that work there.
People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Relatives we spoke with said they were happy with the care provided. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and kindness. We observed that a friendly and positive approach was used, to ensure that the wishes and needs of people using the service were respected.
We found that systems were in place that protected people who used the service against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medication.
Appropriate checks had been undertaken on staff when they were recruited to work in the home and complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.
People who used the service told us they were happy with the care they received. We observed care being given in a way which was both safe and considerate. We also reviewed care records which showed that risk assessments and formal reviews were undertaken to ensure care was effective and safe.
People who used the service told us they felt safe at the home. Care workers had undertaken training in safeguarding and were aware of their responsibility to report any abuse.
People who used the service told us they thought care workers were well trained and knew what they were doing. We spoke to care workers who said they had regular training, supervision and appraisal. We also reviewed a training matrix which showed that staff had regular training in all appropriate areas.
People who used the service said they were asked for their opinion as to the quality of care in the home. We saw that regular meetings were held with people who used the service, relatives, and staff. There were also systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received, and to manage any risks to people's health.
We spoke with three relatives during our inspection who told us they had been involved in the development of their relative's care plan. They also told us they were able to make changes and contribute to their relative's care if they wished. They told us their relative's dignity was respected and confidentiality was always maintained.
We spoke with three relative's who told us they were happy with the care and their family member was well looked after. The three relatives we spoke with told us that the staff understood the care needs of their family member. They also told us they were contacted by the home straight away if their family member required any treatment.
People who used the service told us that they felt safe at the home and they would tell staff or the manager if they were worried about anything. We spoke with three relatives who confirmed they would talk to the manager if they had any concerns. All three relatives told us their relative felt safe.