CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Corvan
Cordelia Court
182a Shakespeare Street, Coventry, CV2 4NF
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2024
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found people at risk from unsafe care, poor records and weak management.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 23 October 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and checked care, medicine, training, accident and management records.
The home was not keeping people safe. Risks were not always identified or acted on, medicines records did not always match the medicines available, and some fire doors, call bells and infection control arrangements were not safe. Staffing was also not always managed well enough to meet people's needs.
People were not always treated with privacy and dignity. Staff had some caring interactions and supported people to make choices, but shared continence items, poor bedding and delays in support were found. Management systems remained ineffective, so the home had not made enough improvement since the previous inspection.
The overall rating fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while caring remained Requires Improvement. The service was placed in special measures, meaning CQC will keep it under review and usually re-inspect within six months.
Some caring interactions
Inspectors saw staff support people in a caring way, although this was not consistent enough to meet the required standard.
“Staff were observed to have a caring approach when supporting people and we saw some caring interactions.” from the report
Choice and least restriction
The home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported to make day-to-day choices, and staff used least restrictive approaches and best-interest decisions where needed.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place or had been applied for” from the report
Safer recruitment checks
Permanent staff had references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks before working at the home.
“Recruitment checks were completed for permanent staff prior to them working at the home this included references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.” from the report
Risks were not managed
seriousImportant risks were not always identified or acted on. Examples included a missing sensor mat, inconsistent checks after a fall, unsafe fire arrangements and a broken call bell.
“Risks associated with people's care and the environment were not effectively managed and records were not always clear to support staff in managing risk.” from the report
Medicines were unsafe
seriousMedicine records did not always match the medicines available. Fridge temperatures were above the safe storage temperature and were not recorded as required.
“Discrepancies between medicine records and actual medicines available meant it was not clear people had received their prescribed medicines as required.” from the report
Infection control failures
seriousInspectors found poor cleanliness, damaged or dirty equipment, inconsistent use of protective equipment and shared continence items.
“Although staff had received IPC training, this was not put into practice resulting in poor practice and a lack of cleanliness in the service.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
seriousPeople were not always treated with dignity. Inspectors found shared continence items, ripped or stained bedding and an occasion when a person was left undressed while staff left the room.
“People who required the use of continence products, had communal shared continence items in use.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits and records did not reliably identify risks or show that incidents had been investigated. The provider had not taken enough action after the previous inspection.
“The provider failed to have effective oversight of the service to identify risks and drive improvement.” from the report
Staffing and activities
needs fixingStaffing was not always managed well enough to meet people's needs. Relatives also reported delays in support and limited social stimulation.
“Relatives told us there was a lack of social stimulation based on people's wishes and interests.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure medicines match the records and are stored at safe temperatures?
- 02Have all fire doors, personal evacuation plans and emergency procedures been checked, and can staff explain what they would do in a fire?
- 03How are falls, accidents and safeguarding incidents now investigated, recorded and reviewed to prevent them happening again?
- 04How will you protect privacy and dignity, including ensuring continence items and bedding are personal, clean and suitable?
- 05How are staffing levels and daily activities being managed so people do not face delays and receive the support and stimulation they need?
This was a focused follow-up inspection covering Safe, Caring and Well-led; the other key-question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 March 2024 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 Cordelia Court
8 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- March 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.