CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aspen Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including admissions, PPE, testing, visitors, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
- 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, November 2020
Aspen Court: infection control arrangements were judged suitable, but this was a targeted inspection and no overall rating was given.
Inspectors visited the home on 22 October 2020. The visit was announced and focused only on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
The home had plans for people discharged from hospital with a positive COVID19 status. Inspectors found separate areas, equipment and waste systems, staff arrangements for changing PPE, and support for essential visitors.
Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed well. This was not a full inspection, so the home was recorded as inspected but not rated.
Plans for admissions
The home had plans to care for people admitted with COVID19, including people discharged from hospital.
“The provider and the registered manager had put robust plans in place which ensured people admitted to the service with COVID19 were able to be cared for.” from the report
Separate facilities
The designated area had its own bedding, towels, crockery, cutlery and waste disposal systems.
“Arrangements had been put in place for the separate designated area of the home to have its own colour coordinated bedding, towels, crockery and cutlery and waste disposal systems.” from the report
PPE arrangements
Staff had areas to change PPE and had been trained in how to use these arrangements. Guidance was also available for essential visitors.
“There were areas of home set aside for staff to change their PPE. Staff had been trained in how to do this.” from the report
Visitors and end of life care
The home had arrangements to support relatives visiting people who needed end of life care.
“Suitable arrangements were in place to support relatives visiting people who needed end of life care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 22 October 2020?
- 02How do you now safely admit people discharged from hospital with a positive COVID-19 status?
- 03How are staff trained and supported to use and change PPE?
- 04How do you arrange testing for people living here and for staff?
- 05How can relatives visit safely, especially when someone needs end of life care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; no ratings were awarded for the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 November 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.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some concerns about activities for people cared for in bed and response times at meals.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 and 5 December 2019. Inspectors spoke with people using the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported in a clean and comfortable environment.
Care plans were up to date and reflected people's choices. Staff supported people's health, nutrition, communication and end of life wishes. The home had improved its activities provision, although relatives still raised concerns about activities for people cared for in bed.
The previous inspection rating was Good, published in June 2017, and all five ratings remained Good. The report says there were no breaches of regulations and no enforcement action was taken.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found that medicines were administered safely and staff understood when to use medicines prescribed as needed.
“Medicines administration was safe. Staff knew the purposes of 'when required' medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff treated people with patience, kindness and respect. They protected dignity and supported independence.
“Staff treated people well and with respect. Staff spoke to people in kind tones and were patient with people.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans described people's choices, preferences and goals. They were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were person-centred. Staff had written care plans which described how people wanted to be supported and to ensure their needs were appropriately met.” from the report
Good links with healthcare professionals
Staff worked with GPs and other professionals to support people's health needs and appointments.
“Staff worked well with local GPs and had developed a ward round approach to meet people's health needs.” from the report
Management monitoring
The manager and staff used audits, surveys and meetings to identify improvements and acted on them.
“Effective arrangements were in place to monitor the quality of the service. Audits carried out by the manager and the staff identified areas for improvement.” from the report
Activities for people cared for in bed
needs fixingRelatives raised concerns about activities for people who were cared for in bed. The manager had increased activity hours and staff were looking at providing more support.
“Relatives raised concerns about activities for people cared for in bed.” from the report
Response times at meals
minorOne relative said staff could sometimes be quicker, particularly around mealtimes. Inspectors otherwise found staff were attentive and people did not wait a long time for assistance.
“The staff are friendly but could be quicker at times especially around meal times.” from the report
- 01What activities are available for people who are cared for in bed?
- 02What changes have been made to provide additional activities for people who cannot leave their rooms or beds?
- 03How do you make sure people receive timely help around mealtimes?
- 04Has the new manager now become registered with the CQC?
- 05How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or wishes change?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions and both the premises and care provided; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 December 2019 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 Aspen Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 November 2015.
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.