Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Corvan

Cordelia Court

182a Shakespeare Street, Coventry, CV2 4NF

Goodpublished 19 February 2025, 18 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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 forfrom 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
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Risks were not managed

    serious

    Important 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

    serious

    Medicine 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

    serious

    Inspectors 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

    serious

    People 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

    serious

    Audits 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 fixing

    Staffing 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
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to make sure medicines match the records and are stored at safe temperatures?
  2. 02Have all fire doors, personal evacuation plans and emergency procedures been checked, and can staff explain what they would do in a fire?
  3. 03How are falls, accidents and safeguarding incidents now investigated, recorded and reviewed to prevent them happening again?
  4. 04How will you protect privacy and dignity, including ensuring continence items and bedding are personal, clean and suitable?
  5. 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Cordelia Court

8 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.

  1. March 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Cordelia Court

  2. May 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. March 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. November 2019Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. May 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. March 2016Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. September 2015Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. March 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. October 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. May 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. February 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. July 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  15. July 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  16. 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.

Another option

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.

Nearby

Other care homes near Coventry

Godiva Lodge

Coventry, CV2 · 0.6 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 9 months agocare home

Evedale Care Home

Coventry, CV2 · 0.9 km
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home

Arden Park

Coventry, CV2 · 1.2 km
Good
Residential
Rated 6 months agocare home

Hipswell Highway

Coventry, CV2 · 1.4 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home