CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Castle Bank Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls, but some PPE use, storage and disposal needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 31 January 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and also asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found that visiting, testing, admissions, cleaning, social distancing and infection control policies were being managed safely. The home had enough suitable PPE, and staff had completed relevant training.
The home was meeting the vaccination requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals. However, inspectors were only somewhat assured that PPE was always used, stored and disposed of safely. The acting manager took steps to improve this after the inspection.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give the home an overall quality rating or full ratings for the five areas of care.
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured that visitors were protected from catching and spreading infections, and that outbreaks could be prevented or managed.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Testing
Regular testing of people living in the home and staff helped identify COVID-19 cases promptly.
“People and staff were tested regularly which helped identify cases of COVID19 in a timely manner.” from the report
Policies and training
The home's infection prevention policies were up to date, and staff had training in PPE, hand hygiene and other COVID-19 measures.
“Staff completed online training including putting on and taking off PPE, hand hygiene and other IPC and COVID-19 related training and updates.” from the report
PPE handling
needs fixingInspectors saw that PPE was not always used, stored and disposed of in line with current government guidance. The acting manager bought new storage and disposal equipment after the inspection.
“We observed some use, storage and disposal of PPE that was not always in line with current government guidance.” from the report
- 01What new PPE storage and disposal equipment was bought after the inspection?
- 02How do you now check that PPE is used, stored and disposed of according to current guidance?
- 03How often are people living in the home and staff tested for COVID-19?
- 04How are visiting arrangements and checks managed now?
- 05What staffing pressures are currently affecting the home, if any?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak response, with questions about staffing pressures; it was not a full quality inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some recruitment records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 September and 1 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, clean surroundings and caring relationships. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities and decisions about their care.
There was one minor weakness in recruitment records. Some employment histories did not contain enough detail, although the recruitment procedures themselves were considered safe. The inspection was prompted partly by concerns about refurbishment work, but inspectors found no evidence that people were harmed or put at risk by it.
The previous overall rating was Good. The Responsive rating improved from Requires Improvement because person-centred activity plans and activities had improved.
Safe care and medicines
People said they felt safe. Medicines were administered regularly, staff were trained, and controlled-drug records were accurate.
“Medicines administration records showed people received their medicines regularly.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found warm relationships between staff and people. People's privacy, dignity, choices and independence were respected.
“Staff treated people with warmth and compassion.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home had detailed activity plans based on people's interests and history. A range of activities was available to help reduce social isolation.
“During this inspection we found this had improved and each person had a detailed person-centred activity plan.” from the report
Good food and healthcare support
People were supported to eat and drink enough, including where they had special dietary or swallowing needs. Staff worked with health professionals and followed their advice.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and to eat where they chose.” from the report
Positive management
People and staff described an approachable manager and a positive atmosphere. The home used surveys, meetings and audits to gather views and improve care.
“Staff told us they worked as a team to deliver high standards of care.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorSome staff recruitment files did not fully record employment histories. Inspectors noted a gap that had an explanation but had not been documented.
“Improvements were needed to recruitment and selection records.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the recording of employment histories in recruitment files?
- 02What personal care can you provide, and how would you respond if my relative later needed nursing care?
- 03How will you involve my relative in creating and reviewing their person-centred activity plan?
- 04What safety checks are in place if refurbishment work is still ongoing?
- 05How will you monitor my relative's food, drink and any special dietary or swallowing needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the safety of the environment during refurbishment work. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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 Castle Bank Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 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.