We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by two inspectors and a medicines inspector.

Service and service type

Corton House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager in post who had applied to become registered with CQC. This means that both they and the provider would be legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority who work with the service. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with eleven people who used the service, two relatives about their experience of the care provided, and ten members of staff. This included the manager, deputy manager, four care staff, a trustee, a volunteer, the director of finance, and the chair of the board of trustees. We also spoke with a visiting health care professional.

We reviewed a range of records. This included four people’s care records, twenty medicine administration records (MAR), and eight care plans relating to people’s medicines. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service were reviewed.

After the inspection

We spoke with two further relatives and three staff, this included a care supervisor, a team leader, and a care assistant.

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at further records relating to the governance of the service, minutes of various meetings, and training data.