CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Acomb Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe infection control, respectful care and good checks, but dignity training was not yet complete for all staff.
This was a targeted inspection on 7 December 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic. The inspector looked mainly at infection control and specific concerns about staffing, medicines, dignity and management. The inspection was announced that morning.
Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks and medicines managed safely. The home was clean, staff used protective equipment correctly, and testing and shielding arrangements were in place.
People said staff were pleasant, respectful and available when needed. Inspectors saw care being given privately and with dignity. Quality checks were in place, including extra checks linked to the coronavirus outbreak.
The home was not given a new overall rating. Its previous rating was Good at the comprehensive inspection on 7 February 2018. This visit did not review every part of the service.
Infection control
Staff had protective equipment, used it correctly and followed measures to reduce the spread of infection. The home also carried out regular testing and used shielding when people tested positive.
“Staff had good access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and used this correctly throughout the inspection.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found systems for managing medicines safely. Medicines were stored securely and staff followed appropriate procedures when handling them.
“Medicines were stored safely in locked trolleys and locked clinical rooms.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
People and staff said there were enough staff, and inspectors found suitable checks had been completed when staff were recruited.
“Staff files contained information that demonstrated appropriate checks were undertaken, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and the taking up of references.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home had systems to monitor quality and risks. Extra checks were being used during the coronavirus outbreak, including checks on cleaning and protective equipment.
“There were additional quality checks in place around the recent covid-19 infection and maintaining good infection control practices.” from the report
Dignity training not complete
needs fixingFollowing an earlier concern about care delivery, staff were asked to repeat training on dignity and person-centred care. At the inspection, 70% had reviewed the relevant training, so this was not yet complete for everyone.
“Training records showed that 70% of staff had so far reviewed training related to dignity.” from the report
Management arrangements during the visit
minorThe registered manager was away, the home's deputy manager was recently in post, and another deputy manager was providing support. Ask how management cover and continuity are now arranged.
“At the time of the inspection the registered manager was on annual leave.” from the report
- 01Has all staff training on dignity and person-centred care now been completed, and how is this checked?
- 02What arrangements are in place for management cover when the registered manager is away?
- 03How were medicines checked and followed up during the coronavirus outbreak, and are the electronic medicine records still accurate?
- 04What happened after the coronavirus outbreak, and what are the current arrangements for relatives visiting?
- 05What actions were taken in response to the previous concern about care delivery?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and specific concerns around staffing, medicines, dignity and respect, and quality management; it did not review all areas or give new ratings, which remained inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 2021 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.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Acomb Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but care records and activities needed monitoring.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 and 28 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with people using the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records and other safety records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas inspected. Inspectors found safe medicines systems, suitable staffing, clean premises and appropriate checks on risks. Staff were described as caring and respectful, and people were supported with food, drink and access to health professionals.
There were some areas to improve. Some older care plans lacked detail, and some records about decision-making contained conflicting information. People gave mixed views about activities. The provider had started action to update records and was asked to monitor both care planning practice and satisfaction with activities.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found appropriate systems for medicines, including controlled drugs and records for creams and patches.
“We checked the management of medicines and found systems were in place to ensure that medicines had been ordered, received, stored, administered and disposed of appropriately.” from the report
Caring staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy, supporting independence and explaining care.
“We observed staff were caring and attentive towards people.” from the report
Food and health support
The home assessed nutrition risks, monitored food and fluid intake and involved health professionals when needed.
“All charts were fully completed and analysed, which showed staff were effectively monitoring people's intake and taking action, as required.” from the report
Active management
The manager used audits, daily meetings and checks to monitor care and safety. Staff efforts were recognised by the provider.
“The registered manager carried out regular audits.” from the report
Mental capacity records and practice
needs fixingSome mental capacity records varied in quality and detail, with conflicting information. Staff had received extra training, but the CQC recommended checking that this was reflected in practice.
“MCA care plans and records varied in quality and detail, and some contained conflicting information.” from the report
Activities
minorPeople gave mixed views about the range and frequency of activities. The CQC recommended monitoring satisfaction, particularly while the activities coordinator was absent.
“We recommend that satisfaction with activities is monitored in light of mixed feedback from people.” from the report
- 01Have all older care plans now been reviewed and updated, including plans about mental health needs?
- 02How do you check that staff understand and follow the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in practice?
- 03What activities are currently available, and how do you record and respond to people's views about them?
- 04How do you monitor whether call bells are answered promptly, particularly for people who have said they sometimes wait?
- 05How has the change to the new provider's paperwork and systems affected care planning and communication with families?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 2018 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 Acomb Court
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.