CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bannatyne Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing levels were sufficient, medicines were managed safely and infection control was effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management oversight, stronger record keeping and regular quality checks, with actions taken when improvements were needed.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Bannatyne Lodge is rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support and improved management after earlier problems with records and oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 27 October 2022 and completed some work remotely until 8 November. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. People and relatives described staff as kind, friendly and caring.
The previous inspection in December 2020 rated the service Requires Improvement and found a breach involving records and quality checks. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach.
Safe care planning
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff clear guidance and were reviewed regularly. Staff understood how to reduce risks and respond when people became anxious or upset.
“Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and reviewed regularly.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff relationships. Inspectors found that staff knew people well and supported them with compassion and respect.
“People and relatives were very positive about the caring nature of staff and had good relationships with them.” from the report
Improved management
The management team had clearer oversight than at the previous inspection. Records were more reliable and audits were used to identify and act on improvements.
“The provider and the registered manager had clear and effective oversight of the service.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and well maintained. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention arrangements were effective.
“The home seems clean, and when you walk in it does not have any unpleasant smell about it.” from the report
Previous record-keeping problems
minorThe previous inspection found inaccurate records and weak quality checks. Inspectors said these problems had been addressed by this inspection, so this was a historical concern rather than a current breach.
“At our last inspection the provider had failed to have accurate records or an effective quality and assurance system in place” from the report
- 01How often are each resident's care plans and risk assessments reviewed, and what happens when their needs change?
- 02What quality checks are now carried out on records, care and safety, and how do you make sure identified actions are completed?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty for each shift, and how do you respond when someone uses their call button?
- 04How are medicines checked and recorded, especially medicines that need to be given at particular times?
- 05How will you keep relatives informed when a resident's health or care needs change?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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, December 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and some improvements, but safety records and management oversight remained weak.
The inspection took place over four visits in September and October 2020. Inspectors reviewed records, premises, infection control, medicines, staffing and recruitment. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and local professionals.
People and relatives said people felt safe and received kind support. Staff knew people well, medicines were managed safely, and people received choices, healthcare support and activities. The Effective and Responsive ratings improved to Good.
However, some risk assessments, care records and medicine records were incomplete or out of date. Infection control and premises safety were not always good enough. Staff deployment also needed review, although the management team acted during the inspection.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Well-led also remained Requires Improvement because the home's checks did not find important problems, and the provider had not completed all promised improvements. The home was still in breach of regulations.
Kind relationships
People and relatives said they felt safe and spoke positively about the care staff provided. Inspectors also saw positive interactions between staff and people.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff knew people well and we saw positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Choice and consent
People were offered choices about their care, food, drink and activities. Mental capacity and best interest records had improved, and staff sought consent.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Activities and community links
The home continued activities during the pandemic and maintained links with local organisations. People also received spiritual support.
“The home had maintained links with the local community throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Healthcare support
Staff involved health professionals when needed and helped people access appointments. Professionals gave positive feedback about how the home worked with them.
“Care records showed other professionals were involved in people's care and consulted to make sure their health care needs were met.” from the report
Incomplete risk and care records
seriousSome records did not contain all the information staff needed to support people safely. Missing assessments included choking, oxygen and emollient cream risks.
“People had personalised risk assessments in place, but these did not always include every risk people may encounter.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not identify important problems, and the provider had not completed all parts of its improvement plan. The home remained in breach of Regulation 17.
“The quality and assurance systems in place did not fully monitor the safety and quality of the care provided to people.” from the report
Infection control and cleanliness
seriousInspectors saw incorrect use of protective equipment and found areas needing more cleaning. Clinical waste was not safely stored.
“The home was not clean, odour free and clinical waste was not safely stored.” from the report
Incidents not reported to CQC
seriousThe provider did not notify CQC about 12 incidents involving serious injury and an allegation of abuse. This was a breach of Regulation 18 of the CQC Registration Regulations.
“The provider and registered manager failed to notify the Commission of 12 incidents relating to serious injury and an allegation of abuse to people living at the service.” from the report
Staff support and deployment
needs fixingStaff deployment needed review so that support was available promptly on each floor. Some staff also said they did not feel supported by the registered manager.
“Staff told us they did not feel supported by the registered manager.” from the report
Food and dementia-friendly surroundings
minorPeople gave mixed views about the food. The building had limited signage to help people living with dementia find key areas.
“The accommodation had not been fully adapted to meet the needs of people living with dementia.” from the report
- 01Which missing or outdated risk assessments and care records have now been reviewed, especially for choking, oxygen and emollient creams?
- 02What evidence can you show that your audits now identify problems with care records, risk management and infection control?
- 03What action was taken after the 12 incidents that were not notified to CQC, and how will you make sure this does not happen again?
- 04Have all staff completed fire safety theory training, and how do you check that staff have the skills needed for people's individual needs?
- 05What changes have been made to staff deployment, cleanliness, clinical waste storage and protective equipment procedures?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, including infection control; the report says ratings for key questions not looked at were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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 Bannatyne Lodge
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 May 2017.
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.