• Care Home
  • Care home

Cavell Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

140 Dragonfly Lane, Cringleford, Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 7SW 0333 321 1980

Provided and run by:
Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd

Report from 1 July 2024 assessment

Ratings

  • Overall

    Good

  • Safe

    Good

  • Effective

    Good

  • Caring

    Good

  • Responsive

    Good

  • Well-led

    Good

Our view of the service

Cavell court is a 'care home' that provides care and support to older people some of whom may be living with dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. Cavell court can accommodate up to 80 people over 5 suites across 3 floors. On the first day of the assessment there were 67 people living at the service. We completed our unannounced on-site assessment on 8 August 2024 and 14 August 2024. Prior to our visit we requested some information and received email contact from ten relatives, 4 health care professionals and 4 staff. On site we used an expert by experience to gain the views of 5 relatives and 5 people using the service. 3 inspectors carried out observations, spoke with staff, volunteers, visitors, and health care professionals. We carried out a medicines audit and staff record check as well as reviewing care plans, maintenance records and provider led audits. The local authority advised us that improvements were necessary following their visit last year. CQCs last inspection was in August 2021 and the service was rated good. During our recent assessment we identified improvements were being made to improve people’s experiences in care and recruitment of staff was robust. We found however that not all staff were working effectively to ensure people received a consistently good service. People’s experiences could be improved by having a named staff member, (key worker) to oversee the person’s care and ensure that their individual preferences are known. More staff champions would support staff to develop their skills and promote good standards of care. Staff practices varied and some staff would benefit from more top-down support and senior leaders modelling good practice. People would benefit from a more varied activity programme supported by all staff and staff recognising the importance of sitting with people to talk, reminisce and promote their well being

People's experience of this service

Overall people’s experiences were good. The home was clean, well maintained with no obvious hazards for people’s safety. Falls were reducing although relatives raised concerns about the impact of falls and if this was linked to staffing levels or the deployment of staff at different times of the day. People received their medicines safely and staff received adequate training. We observed people were well dressed and there were no odours in the service. The home was open with no restrictive practice unless it had been agreed in the person’s best interest. Staff were observed to be unrushed and polite. People and staff had good relationships. The manager was long standing and tried to ensure communication was thorough and all parts of the service were managed effectively. Various heads of department were working effectively including housekeeping and maintenance. People told us staff were kind and attentive but not everyone felt there was enough to engage them during the day. One person said, “there is nothing offered that interests me.” Another person told us, “There is nothing to do on a Sunday.” Whilst we observed some positive interactions and engagement, we also observed some poor interactions particularly around meal times. Some people were waiting a long time for their meals to be served and people did not get timely and discreet support as needed. The dining room tables were beautifully laid out and the food was well presented but staff were not sitting with people or encouraging people to socialize. The dining rooms were well used on the top two floors, but this was not the case on the ground floor with a lot of people choosing to eat in isolation hence the importance of having other activities people could join in across the day. Staff also told us it was the same people joining in activities which suggested they were generic rather than individualised.