CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Addison Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2024
Addison Court was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety and leadership failures.
This was an unannounced inspection over four days. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, audits and other safety documents. They also observed care.
The home was not consistently safe. Safeguarding concerns were not always investigated properly. Risks, falls and medicines were not managed reliably. Recruitment checks were incomplete, and some agency staff did not know people's needs well enough.
Inspectors also found shortfalls in care planning, mealtime support, involvement in care, complaints handling and management oversight. There were some positives, including good infection control, access to healthcare and staff who spoke positively about the people they supported.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 27 October 2022, to Inadequate. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Requires Improvement.
Infection control
Inspectors found that staff used protective equipment correctly and followed good hygiene practices.
“People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were following safe infection prevention and control (IPC) practices.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People were referred to healthcare professionals when needed, and health professionals visited the home regularly.
“People were supported to access healthcare services and support. Care records showed people had been referred to external health care professionals when needed.” from the report
Choice and legal safeguards
Inspectors found that the home followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and had appropriate authorisations where needed.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.” from the report
Positive staff views
Staff spoke positively about the people they supported and said the care was good enough for their family or friends.
“Staff spoke positively about the people they supported. They told us the care at the home was good enough for their family or friends.” from the report
Safeguarding concerns
seriousSome allegations of abuse were not investigated impartially or followed by robust action. The safeguarding log did not contain all incidents, actions, outcomes or lessons learnt.
“People were not always safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousRecords did not show reliably that medicines were given as prescribed. Inspectors found unexplained missed doses, including one critical Parkinson's medicine, and weaknesses in records for creams and as-required medicines.
“Medicines were not safely managed. Records did not assure us that oral medicines were administered as prescribed.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome staff files did not contain suitable references, complete work or education histories, or verified references. The report says some agency staff had not been safely recruited.
“The provider did not operate safe recruitment processes.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits and incident reviews did not reliably identify trends, investigate problems or ensure action was taken. Care records and handovers were also sometimes incomplete or inaccurate.
“The provider's quality monitoring systems had not been used effectively to ensure improvements were identified and acted on quickly.” from the report
- 01What immediate changes have been made to ensure all safeguarding concerns are investigated properly and recorded with actions, outcomes and lessons learnt?
- 02How are you checking that every medicine, including Parkinson's medicines, creams and as-required medicines, is given and recorded correctly?
- 03What recruitment checks have now been completed for permanent and agency staff, and how do you make sure agency staff understand each person's needs before starting a shift?
- 04How are care plans and care reviews being kept up to date, and how are relatives involved in them?
- 05What changes have been made to audits, handovers and complaints handling so that problems are identified, answered and followed through?
This was an unannounced full inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided; all five ratings were reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 May 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.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Addison Court is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but medicine records needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 26 July and 9 August 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files and other records.
People and relatives were generally positive about the home. Inspectors saw kind and caring interactions. They found enough staff, personalised care plans, meaningful activities and a clean home with suitable infection control measures.
Medicines were generally managed safely, but records for medicines given when needed and for creams and ointments were not always complete. The provider was recommended to review these records. The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection published in September 2020.
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw many kind and caring interactions. Relatives were also complimentary about the staff team.
“We observed many kind and caring interactions between staff and people throughout the inspection.” from the report
Managing risks
People had personalised risk assessments with clear instructions for staff. The home also had environmental safety assessments.
“Risks were safely managed and assessments in place to keep people safe.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's choices, preferences and assessed needs. Relatives were involved in reviews when people's needs changed.
“People had personalised care plans in place which reflected their choices, preferences and assessed needs.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The management team investigated incidents and complaints. Feedback, audits and investigations were used to improve care.
“Results from feedback surveys, incidents, audits and complaints was used to improve the quality of care provided to people.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingRecords did not always show the steps for giving medicines when needed, or when creams and ointments had been applied. Inspectors recommended a full review of these records.
“Some people had topical medicines prescribed, for example creams and ointments, but records did not always show when these medicines had been applied.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to records for medicines given when needed since the inspection?
- 02How do you now record when creams and ointments have been applied?
- 03How will you make sure staff have enough time for one-to-one activities and engagement with residents?
- 04How are relatives involved when a person's care needs change?
- 05How do you use complaints, incidents and feedback to improve care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 2022 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 Addison Court
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- May 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2022GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 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, 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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Gateshead
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 £1,240 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.