CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Blyth Country House Care Home
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, cleaning, admissions and visiting arrangements. The provider also said it had 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 found strong infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a targeted inspection on 8 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care. The inspection was announced one day in advance.
Inspectors found that visitors were tested and given protective equipment. Staff had enough protective equipment, used it correctly and took part in regular testing. Cleaning schedules covered frequently touched areas, and infection control audits were completed.
The home was rated inspected but not rated overall, and Safe was also inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all areas of care, so the report does not provide ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led.
Visitor infection controls
Visitors were asked to take a lateral flow test and were given appropriate protective equipment when entering the home.
“Visitors were asked to complete Lateral Flow Device test and were provided with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Keeping families in touch
During the COVID-19 outbreak, visits were postponed in some cases, but end-of-life visits were encouraged and other ways to maintain contact were used.
“Alternative forms of maintaining social contact were used during the outbreak for friends and relatives to stay in touch with their family members, which included video calls, window visits and phone calls.” from the report
PPE and staff testing
Staff had enough protective equipment, had been trained to use it and were seen using it in line with guidance. People and staff were also taking part in regular testing.
“Staff were provided with ample supply of PPE and had received appropriate training on donning and doffing their PPE.” from the report
Cleaning and audits
Cleaning schedules included frequently touched areas. Infection control audits were completed and shortfalls were acted on without delay.
“The registered manager completed regular infection prevention and control (IPC) audits and any shortfalls were actioned without delay.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and how do you support family contact during an infection outbreak?
- 02How do you test residents and staff for infections now?
- 03How do you make sure staff have enough PPE and use it correctly?
- 04How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 05How often are infection prevention and control audits completed, and how are any shortfalls put right?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated overall or for Safe, and the other areas were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some care plans did not give enough detail for consistent support.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 31 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care, medicines administration and interactions between people and staff. They also checked care plans, risk assessments, staff records, training and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and good access to health care. People were treated kindly and with respect, and activities reflected their interests.
Inspectors found one shortfall in the care plans they reviewed. Some included general suggestions rather than clear details about the support needed. The manager accepted this and said the guidance would be reviewed. The home was rated Good overall, which means it met the CQC standards in all five areas at this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently described staff as caring. Inspectors saw calm, patient and respectful interactions, including staff checking people's understanding and asking permission before care.
“Staff spoke with people in a calm, considerate and respectful manner, and called people by their preferred names.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records and controlled medicines checks were in place. Staff who administered medicines had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance by staff who had received training to help ensure safe practice.” from the report
Suitable staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had relevant training, supervision and support, and staffing levels were increased when people's needs changed.
“People received care and support from staff who were appropriately trained and confident to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
People had meaningful activities that reflected their interests and preferences. Inspectors saw group activities taking place and found the activities coordinator engaging.
“Meaningful activities were provided for people, which reflected their identified interests and preferences.” from the report
Some care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans used general statements instead of saying exactly what support was needed and how often. Inspectors raised this with the manager, who agreed the guidance needed reviewing.
“However, the care plans we reviewed contained a number of generic statements which did not always provide sufficient information to enable care to be provided consistently.” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans so they state exactly how often each person needs repositioning and what equipment they need?
- 02How do you make sure staffing is sufficient during busy morning periods?
- 03What activities are available at weekends, when the activities coordinator may not be present?
- 04How do you maintain the improved communication and continuity with health professionals described in the report?
- 05How would you record and respond if we raised a concern about medicines or another aspect of care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous inspection in March 2015 had also rated all areas Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 2017 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 Blyth Country House Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Blyth Country House Care Home →
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Blyth Country House Care Home →
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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 £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.