CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Castle Donington Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements, but the correct face masks were not available for some procedures.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 17 December 2020. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors looked only at infection control measures.
Inspectors found good arrangements for testing, safe admissions, social distancing, cleaning, visiting and supplying most personal protective equipment. People could keep in touch with family and friends by phone and video calls.
There was one important shortfall. Staff did not have the correct face masks for aerosol generating procedures. Inspectors said this increased the risk of COVID-19 transmission. The service was working with the local infection prevention team to resolve it.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide a new overall rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Safe admissions and testing
People returning to the home or from hospital were supported to self-isolate and needed a negative test before admission. Testing was also carried out for staff and people living at the home.
“Testing was completed for staff and people living at the service.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors observed that the home was clean. Infection control audits were taking place, with improvements planned.
“The service was observed to be clean. Infection control audits were undertaken, the service planned improvements to these.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends by telephone and video calls. The visiting policy had been updated in line with government guidance.
“People were supported to maintain contact with family members and friends via phone and video calling.” from the report
Social distancing and reduced contact
Staff were allocated to particular areas and the home had enough space for people to socially distance.
“Staff were allocated to support people in specific areas of the service to reduce the number of contacts they had between them.” from the report
Incorrect masks for some procedures
seriousStaff did not have access to the correct face masks for aerosol generating procedures. Inspectors said this increased the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
“However, for aerosol generating procedures, staff did not have access to the correct face masks.” from the report
- 01Do staff now have the correct face masks for aerosol generating procedures?
- 02What action was taken with the local infection prevention team to resolve the PPE problem?
- 03How are staff and residents currently tested for COVID-19?
- 04What are the current visiting arrangements, including PPE and visitor testing?
- 05What improvements were identified through the infection control audits, and have they been completed?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but effective care Requires Improvement because oral healthcare systems needed strengthening.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector and one Expert by Experience. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, checked records, toured the premises and reviewed medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led care were rated Good. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, treated with kindness and dignity, supported to make choices, and given personalised care.
Effective care was rated Requires Improvement. Oral health assessments and care plans were missing, there was no routine dental screening, and staff had not had oral healthcare training. Inspectors also found that mealtime support and the range of activities could be better.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding procedures and how to report concerns. Risks such as falls were assessed and managed.
“People received safe care and were protected against avoidable harm, neglect and discrimination.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's routines and preferences. Inspectors saw people being treated with kindness, dignity and respect, with their consent sought before support was given.
“Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, interests and preferred ways of being supported. People and relatives were involved in care planning and decisions.
“Care plans contained the information staff needed to provide people with the care they needed, their likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits, staff supervision, training and action plans to monitor care and address problems. Inspectors found improvements were acted on promptly.
“The quality of care was regularly monitored.” from the report
Oral healthcare
needs fixingPeople did not have oral health care plans or admission assessments, and there was no routine dental screening. One identified denture problem had not been followed up, and staff had not received oral healthcare training.
“People did not have an oral health care plan and there were no arrangements in place for routine dental screening.” from the report
Mealtime encouragement
needs fixingInspectors saw one person asleep at lunchtime and receiving very little encouragement to wake or eat. This meant mealtime support was not always effective.
“There was very little encouragement to either wake them or encourage them to eat.” from the report
Range of activities
minorMost people were happy with the activities, but some people and relatives wanted more choice and more to do.
“Some people told us they would like to see more activities on offer.” from the report
- 01How do you now assess and record each person's oral health when they move in?
- 02How do you arrange routine dental screening and follow up problems such as ill-fitting dentures?
- 03What oral healthcare training have staff completed?
- 04How do staff make sure people who are asleep or need help receive enough encouragement and support to eat?
- 05What extra activities are now available for people who want more variety?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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 Donington Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Castle Donington Nursing Home →
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Castle Donington Nursing Home →
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.