CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Allison House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, risks, health and safety checks and infection control were managed well, although recruitment records were not always complete and incident trend reviews were limited.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's eating, drinking, health and support needs were met. Staff were trained, but some staff supervisions had not taken place and some best-interest decisions did not show enough involvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- Relatives spoke highly of the staff. Inspectors saw patient, kind and respectful care, with people supported to make choices and maintain their dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed when people's needs changed. People had individual and group activities, support to maintain relationships, and care that took account of communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider and manager were visible and focused on improving people's outcomes. There were systems to monitor quality and gather feedback, with plans to widen the monitoring.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Allison House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, with some records and monitoring needing improvement.
This was the first inspection since the home registered with the CQC. It was unannounced and took place on 06 July 2022 and 13 July 2022. One inspector observed care, spoke with six relatives and eight staff, and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home provided nursing and personal care for up to 40 people living with dementia. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, had enough to eat and drink, and were supported by trained staff.
Inspectors found a warm atmosphere and kind relationships between staff, people and relatives. Care was personalised and activities supported people's social and emotional needs. Some recruitment records were incomplete, reviews of incident patterns were limited, and some supervision and best-interest records needed attention.
Kind relationships
Relatives praised the staff, and inspectors saw patient, affectionate and respectful interactions. The home had a calm and friendly atmosphere.
“People were supported by dedicated, and well-trained staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported with individual and group activities, including events in the local community. Activities were reviewed to keep them relevant to people's interests.
“People were supported to participate in a range of activities.” from the report
Food and fluids
The home met people's nutrition and hydration needs and used creative approaches when someone was reluctant to drink.
“The provider used innovative ideas to support with hydration.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs and preferences. Staff responded when people's health changed and sought help from healthcare professionals.
“Care plans were person centred and developed around people's needs.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff files did not contain all the documents needed to show that checks had been completed before employment. The manager later found the missing records and confirmed the checks had been done.
“Recruitment files did not contain all the records to show appropriate checks had been carried out including application forms, references and DBS checks.” from the report
Learning from incidents
needs fixingAccidents and incidents were recorded and investigated, but the home had only limited review of patterns and trends. The manager had started work to improve this.
“A review to learn from trends or patterns of incidents was limited.” from the report
Condition of some areas
minorThe home was clean and tidy, but some areas looked tired and needed freshening up. A redecoration programme was planned.
“The home was clean and tidy, but in some areas, had a tired appearance and needed freshening up.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff had not received the expected supervision. The manager had an action plan to address this.
“The registered manager acknowledged that some supervisions had not been conducted but had put an action plan in place to address this.” from the report
- 01Have all staff recruitment files now been checked and completed, including references, application forms and DBS checks?
- 02How do you review accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns to identify patterns and prevent them happening again?
- 03Have all staff now received regular supervision and discussions about their development?
- 04What has been done to redecorate or improve the areas that inspectors described as tired?
- 05How are relatives and others involved in best-interest decisions when a person cannot make a specific decision?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC key questions and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 July 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 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were safe during the COVID-19 outbreak.
The inspection took place on 3 November 2020. It was announced and targeted. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found good arrangements for people isolating or testing positive for COVID-19. Dedicated staff teams supported them, and separate changing, bathroom and break areas helped keep staff teams apart.
The home had supplies of personal protective equipment, clear instructions, staff training, visitor checks and extra cleaning. Visits were restricted at the time, with video calls and carefully managed visits for people receiving end of life care.
This inspection did not give an overall quality rating. The service was recorded as 'Inspected but not rated', and the Safe question was also inspected but not rated.
Separate support for people with COVID-19
People who were isolating or had tested positive had a dedicated staff team and separate staff facilities were available.
“People who were isolating or had tested positive for COVID 19, had their own dedicated staff team who met all their needs” from the report
PPE and staff training
Inspectors found clear instructions about PPE and handwashing, appropriate staff training and plentiful PPE supplies.
“National guidance was followed on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Clean environment
The home was very clean, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces. The laundry was also clean and well organised.
“The environment was very clean. Additional cleaning was taking place including of frequently touched surfaces.” from the report
Managed visiting arrangements
Visitor temperature checks, PPE and clear signs were used. Visits for people receiving end of life care were carefully managed.
“Visits were arranged where people were on end of life care and carefully managed to ensure risks were kept to a minimum.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not say what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01How would you safely admit someone new, given that the report says there had been no recent admissions?
- 02How do you keep dedicated staff teams separate when people are isolating or have tested positive for COVID-19?
- 03What infection control training and PPE checks do staff receive now?
- 04How are visits currently arranged, including visits for people receiving end of life care?
- 05What changes have you made following the resources the inspectors signposted you to?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not provide ratings for the service's overall quality or the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 December 2020 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 Allison House
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2019.
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
45 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockton-on-Tees
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 £980 to £1,190 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“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.