CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bowburn Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, safe medicines systems, sufficient staffing and effective infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection, although inspectors observed respectful interactions and received positive feedback about the care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People had access to varied activities, communication needs were recorded and followed, and complaints were handled promptly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had sustained improvements in safety, records, teamwork, training and activities. Audits and governance systems were effective, and staff and external professionals gave positive feedback about leadership.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Bowburn Care Centre is rated Good; inspectors found safe, responsive and well-led care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 18 August 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, responsive and well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found that people were kept safe, their care was personalised, activities were varied and managers had improved the service since the previous inspection.
The inspection found that the home was clean and well maintained, medicines were managed safely and staff worked well together. Inspectors noted one instance of poor personal protective equipment practice, which the manager dealt with promptly. They also said the outdoor space should be reviewed to better meet the needs of people living with dementia.
Safe care
Inspectors found that staff understood risks, worked together and responded promptly to people's needs. Medicines were stored and given safely by competent staff.
“People were looked after safely in a home that had a welcoming, positive atmosphere.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and communication needs. People and relatives were involved in reviewing care.
“Care plans were detailed and person-centred.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered varied activities and supported people to maintain friendships, religious links and community connections.
“People enjoyed individual and group activities which were well planned and inclusive.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found that managers had made and sustained improvements. Staff understood their roles and felt supported.
“The registered manager had implemented and sustained a range of improvements to the service.” from the report
Outdoor space
minorThe outdoor area had not yet been fully reviewed to ensure it met the needs of people living with dementia. The manager agreed this should be considered.
“The registered manager agreed that the outdoor space would benefit from being reviewed to ensure it better met the needs of people living with dementia.” from the report
PPE practice
minorInspectors observed one instance where personal protective equipment was not used correctly. The manager acted promptly and appropriately.
“We observed one instance of poor PPE practice; the registered manager acted promptly and appropriately.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made, or are planned, to the outdoor space for people living with dementia?
- 02What was the PPE issue found during the inspection, and how do you check that staff now follow the correct practice?
- 03How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels remain safe when there are unexpected staff absences?
- 05How can relatives be involved in planning activities and reviewing their family member's care?
This inspection rated Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not rated, so those areas do not have a current rating in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 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, August 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found major progress since the previous Inadequate rating, but some care records, personal care and staff practice still needed work.
Inspectors visited without warning on four dates in June and July 2021. They spoke with people, staff, managers and community healthcare professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and other records.
The home had improved from Inadequate and was no longer in Special Measures. Medicines, recruitment, infection control, the building and management checks had improved. There were enough staff overall, although agency staff were being used and some agency workers had not received a proper induction.
The rating was Requires Improvement for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors still found concerns about personal care, pressure area care, fluid recording, care records and how quickly staff could reach some people in their rooms.
This was a focused inspection. It checked Safe, Responsive and Well-led against the home's action plan. The Effective and Caring questions were not looked at during this visit, so no new ratings were given for them.
Improved medicines safety
Medicines were stored and given safely by trained, competent staff. Records and monitoring had significantly improved.
“Medicines storage and administration was safe. Increased monitoring was in place to ensure that medicines were given as prescribed and ordered and stored correctly.” from the report
Safer recruitment and training
Recruitment checks had been strengthened. Staff had received mandatory training and supervision.
“The provider's recruitment process minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed and recruitment records had improved.” from the report
Cleaner, safer environment
The building and equipment were safe and well maintained. A major refurbishment had improved the home, with more work planned.
“A major refurbishment programme has been commenced, which has significantly enhanced the environment in all areas.” from the report
More open leadership
People and staff spoke positively about the new management. The home worked constructively with local authority and healthcare partners.
“We received positive feedback from the local authority practice improvement team who have been working with the home weekly on their action plan” from the report
Agency staff induction
needs fixingAgency staff were being used while the home recruited. Inspectors found that agency staff had not always received the information and induction they needed, although this was addressed immediately.
“We found agency staff had not always been inducted or had the relevant information about them at the home.” from the report
Personal and pressure area care
needs fixingCommunity healthcare professionals raised concerns about the thoroughness of personal care and care for people with tissue viability needs. The provider said this would be addressed.
“We did receive some concerns from visiting community professionals regarding the thoroughness of personal care and the care of people with tissue viability.” from the report
Fluid recording
needs fixingA healthcare professional remained concerned about fluid records and whether staff were offering fluids properly, despite staff training.
“A healthcare professional reported they still had concerns about fluid recording and practice of offering fluids by staff despite all staff being trained by the management team.” from the report
Incomplete care information
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments did not give consistent information. One person's food guidance was unclear about whether they were at risk of choking, although this was corrected immediately.
“Some work was still needed to ensure information across care plans and risk assessments was consistent.” from the report
- 01How do you check that personal care and pressure area care are being completed consistently?
- 02How do you record and monitor people's fluid intake, and how do staff make sure fluids are offered as planned?
- 03What induction and key information do agency staff receive before working with residents?
- 04How quickly can staff respond to people who remain in their rooms, given the layout of the home?
- 05What actions remain open on the improvement plan for care records, risk assessments and audits?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 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 Bowburn Care Centre
7 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2010.
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.