CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Burbank Mews
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with appropriate risk assessments, safeguarding procedures, staffing and medicines systems. Infection control arrangements were also found to be effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support, and worked within the Mental Capacity Act. People received help with healthcare, healthy eating and their individual communication and sensory needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with warmth, kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices, maintain important relationships and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported to follow their interests, try new experiences, communicate in ways they understood and work towards their goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible and approachable management, effective governance and a culture focused on learning and improvement. People, relatives, staff and professionals were involved in developing the service.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with significant improvements since earlier inspections.
Inspectors visited on 17, 25 and 31 August 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care and staff records, and checked the home and its infection control arrangements.
The home supports autistic people and people with a learning disability. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and dignity, involved in decisions, and supported to build skills, pursue interests and maintain relationships.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of this inspection, but a Good rating is not a guarantee that every aspect will always be perfect.
Choice and independence
Staff focused on what people could do and helped them make choices, develop skills and take positive risks. People were supported to lead meaningful lives.
“The service supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Staff understood people's communication, emotional and sensory needs and treated them with dignity.
“Staff members showed warmth and respect when interacting with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, strengths, health, communication and aspirations. Staff helped people work towards goals such as minibreaks and new activities.
“People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations” from the report
Good safety arrangements
Risks, medicines, safeguarding, staffing and infection control were managed well. Staff also reviewed incidents and looked for ways to reduce restrictions.
“Staff managed incidents affecting people's safety well.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep people and their relatives updated as the building work and moves into single-occupancy bungalows continue?
- 02How do you make sure my relative's care plan, risk assessments and communication needs are reviewed when their needs or wishes change?
- 03How many staff will support my relative at different times, including for one-to-one activities and visits?
- 04How do you check that medicines remain appropriate and are not being used to control behaviour?
- 05How will my relative be supported to choose activities, develop independence and maintain contact with family and friends?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided, with infection prevention and control also checked. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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, March 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found major improvements and good safety and leadership, but infection-control issues remained.
This was a focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 15 January 2021 and reviewed information up to 5 February 2021. They visited two people in their bungalows, spoke with staff and professionals, received one relative's response, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment, safeguarding and accident reviews were managed well. The home was clean and maintained, and staff supported people's choice, independence, privacy and dignity.
Inspectors found some infection-control shortfalls. A minority of staff were not bare below the elbow, and clinical waste management needed improvement in one bungalow. The manager took immediate action. The home did not have a CQC-registered manager at the time, although an application had been submitted.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. The previous rating was Inadequate and the home had been in Special Measures, but it is no longer in Special Measures and was no longer rated Inadequate in any key question.
Safe risk management
People's risks were identified, reviewed and managed. Fire safety checks and emergency evacuation plans were also in place.
“Risks to people's safety and welfare were identified and well managed.” from the report
Medicines
Medicine records had improved and were completed correctly. Guidance for medicines given when needed was person-centred.
“Medicine administration records had improved and were now completed correctly.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home had improved how it analysed accidents and incidents, and shared learning with staff.
“There were effective processes to ensure lessons were learnt.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found thorough recruitment checks and enough staff to meet people's needs safely.
“Recruitment procedures were now safe and thorough.” from the report
Improved leadership
Quality monitoring and oversight had improved, and staff described the management team as supportive and approachable.
“Quality monitoring systems had improved and there was better oversight of the service.” from the report
Infection-control practice
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that personal protective equipment was used effectively because some staff were not bare below the elbow.
“We were somewhat assured that the service used PPE effectively to safeguard staff and people using the service.” from the report
Clinical waste
needs fixingClinical waste management needed improvement in one bungalow. The management team took immediate action after inspectors raised it.
“We also identified that the management of clinical waste could be improved in one bungalow.” from the report
Registered manager
minorThere was no manager registered with the CQC at the time of inspection. An application had been submitted.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission, although the current manager had applied to become the registered manager.” from the report
Sustaining improvements
minorA new quality-monitoring process was due to be introduced, so inspectors said the improvements needed to continue.
“The provider was due to introduce a new quality monitoring process shortly after our inspection, so improvements in this area need to be sustained.” from the report
- 01Has the CQC registration application for the current manager been completed, and what is its current status?
- 02What action was taken to ensure all staff follow the bare-below-the-elbow infection-control practice?
- 03What changes were made to clinical waste management in the bungalow identified by inspectors?
- 04How will the new quality-monitoring process keep the improvements in place?
- 05What are the current ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive from the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 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 Burbank Mews
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- July 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 June 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
43 live-in carers within about an hour of Hartlepool
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 £970 to £1,120 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“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.