CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Anna S Proctor House Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Anna S Proctor House Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and personalised, but medicines and quality checks were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the previous Requires Improvement rating. The inspection took place on 20 October, 2 November and 8 November 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records and other documents.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found kind care, enough staff, support for people’s choices and independence, and activities that matched people’s interests.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Medicines were not always managed safely. Checks did not find or correct these problems. The home remained in breach of regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. This was the home’s second consecutive rating of Requires Improvement, although fire safety and risk assessments had improved since the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff providing compassionate support. People were treated with dignity and encouraged to do things for themselves.
“Throughout the inspection we saw kind and caring support being delivered.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff focused on people’s strengths and supported them to make choices, take positive risks and live as independently as possible.
“Staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do, so they had fulfilling and meaningful lives.” from the report
Personalised support
People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care. Staff knew people’s needs and preferences.
“People received personalised support based on their choices and needs.” from the report
Improved safety systems
Risk assessments and fire safety arrangements had improved since the previous inspection. Fire drills took place at different times so staff could practise procedures.
“Fire drills were regularly carried out. Drills took placed at different times during the day and night to ensure all staff were familiar with safety procedures.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousMedicine stock discrepancies were not always investigated. Guidance for medicines given when needed and topical medicines was incomplete or inconsistent, and some records were unclear.
“The provider had a medication stock count in place to check that medicine were administered as prescribed, however when discrepancies were noted these were not always escalated for investigation.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe provider’s audits did not identify the medicines problems found by inspectors. This meant management systems were not reliably protecting people from risk.
“The provider and registered manager carried out a range of quality assurance checks at the service. These had not identified or addressed the issues we found with medicines management.” from the report
A care plan was incomplete
minorFor one person, the initial assessment had not resulted in all relevant care plans being written. The manager said this process would be reviewed.
“For one person, we saw this assessment had not led to all relevant care plans being put in place.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure medicine stock discrepancies are investigated every time?
- 02Where are the written instructions for medicines prescribed to be given when needed?
- 03How are topical medicines recorded, and how do you make sure staff apply them at the correct frequency?
- 04What new checks will identify medicines and care-record problems before they put people at risk?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan submitted after this inspection?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection checking action required after the previous inspection, including all five key questions and medicines and governance arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 November 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, January 2021
Anna S Proctor House Care Home: a targeted infection-control inspection found good practice, but the service was inspected and not rated.
The inspection took place on 17 December 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control only.
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for visitors, shielding, social distancing, new admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
People were supported by staff who knew them well. The home had supplies of protective equipment, and people and staff regularly took part in coronavirus testing.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating, and it does not assess all five areas of care.
Infection control
The home had arrangements to reduce the risk of visitors catching or spreading infection.
“Systems were in place to prevent visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Protective equipment
Protective equipment was available, and staff had been trained to use it.
“Stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE) were in place and staff were trained in its use.” from the report
Staff knowledge of people
Staff knew people well and helped reassure them about infection-control arrangements.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well, which helped to reassure them about infection prevention and control systems.” from the report
Testing
People living in the home and staff regularly took part in coronavirus testing.
“People and staff were regularly taking part in the Covid testing programme.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently prevent visitors from catching or spreading infections?
- 02How do you support people who need to be isolated or shielded?
- 03How are staff trained to use protective equipment safely, and how do you check this?
- 04How often are people living here and staff tested for coronavirus or other infections?
- 05When was your infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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.
Every inspection of Anna S Proctor House Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Anna S Proctor House Care Home →
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Anna S Proctor House Care Home →
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 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.