CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Allan Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, visiting, hygiene, admissions and outbreak management. The provider also described measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, PPE and visiting arrangements.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 February 2022. It was a targeted review of infection prevention and control, including the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, followed testing and social distancing rules, managed visits in line with government guidance and had plans for preventing or managing outbreaks. Staff had training and checks on hand washing and PPE use.
The inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rating for the five areas of care. It only recorded Safe as inspected but not rated, so it is not a full judgement on the home.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including current policies and contingency plans.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
PPE training
Most staff used PPE correctly. Staff had training and competency checks for hand washing and PPE use, and minor issues were corrected straight away.
“Staff had been trained in IPC measures and competency checks of hand washing and PPE use were completed.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visits were not restricted and relatives said they were happy with the infection control measures used during visits.
“Relatives told us they were happy with the IPC measures that were followed when they visited.” from the report
Plans and procedures
The home had policies, procedures and contingency plans in place to support its response to infection risks and staffing pressures.
“Policies, procedures and contingency plans were in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How did COVID-19-related staffing pressures affect people’s daily care during the period covered by the report?
- 02How often are staff competency checks for hand washing and PPE use repeated?
- 03What happens if there is an infection outbreak, and how are relatives informed?
- 04How are visitors currently managed, and are visits still available without restrictions?
- 05How are people tested when they are admitted, and how is ongoing testing arranged for people and staff?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some medicines and care records needed correction.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 and 22 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and other professionals. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines information and the home’s quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable staff training, kind care and support for people’s choices, health needs and activities.
There were some shortfalls. A few medicines records and care plans were incomplete, a dietitian’s advice was not always followed, and provider visits were not formally recorded at the home. The manager addressed several issues during the inspection. The report says the home met all the fundamental standards inspected against.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe and secure. Inspectors found safeguarding systems, risk assessments, safety checks and enough staff on duty.
“People told us they felt safe and secure.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found positive relationships between staff and the people they supported. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“The service employed staff who maintained positive, kind and considerate relationships with the people they supported and their relatives.” from the report
Support with food and health
People had a choice of food and tailored meals, with extra support when needed. Staff involved healthcare professionals, including dietitians and specialist nurses.
“People had meals tailored to their particular needs.” from the report
Individual care and activities
Care plans reflected people’s needs, wishes and choices. The home offered activities, entertainment and regular minibus trips to help reduce social isolation.
“The provider protected people from social isolation with various activities in place and the use of a mini bus twice per week.” from the report
Approachable management
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. Staff meetings, feedback surveys and quality checks were in place.
“People said, "The manager seems nice I see her around sometimes" and "The Manager is nice yes…very approachable and easy to talk to.” from the report
Incomplete care plans
needs fixingA small number of care plans were missing or did not contain enough detail. The manager said these issues had been addressed straight away.
“We found a small number of care plans which were either not in place or lacked detail.” from the report
Dietary advice not always followed
needs fixingA dietitian had advised daily mid-morning milkshakes for one person, but this did not always happen. The manager said it would be addressed.
“A dietitian had advised one person to have daily mid-morning milk shakes but this did not always occur.” from the report
Provider visit records
minorThe provider’s representative visited and carried out checks, but records of these visits were not available at the home. Inspectors made a recommendation to improve this.
“We recommend copies of provider visits are recorded and maintained at the service in line with best practice.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that as-required medicines and topical medicines have complete instructions and recording charts?
- 02How do you make sure every person has a complete and up-to-date care plan?
- 03How do you check that specialist advice, such as prescribed daily milkshakes, is followed every day?
- 04Where are provider visits recorded now, and can families see how actions from those visits are followed up?
- 05Where do staff hold handovers so that people cannot overhear private information?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the whole service; the report used a shorter format because the overall Good rating had not changed since the full inspection in April 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 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 Allan Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 2011.
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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
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 £1,160 a week. 30 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.