CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Charlotte Straker House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. They found arrangements for PPE, testing, social distancing, safe admissions and managing possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed in this inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced inspection on 15 October 2020. It was part of a national review of infection control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found that the home had measures to reduce the spread of infection. These included handwashing facilities, suitable protective equipment, testing, social distancing and an isolation unit.
The home was inspected for infection prevention and control only. The service and its safe rating were recorded as 'Inspected but not rated', so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Handwashing arrangements
A portable handwashing sink was available in the summerhouse, and people had to wash their hands before entering the home.
“Everyone had to wash their hands in the sink before going into the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was enough PPE, and staff were using it correctly. Staff had also completed training about PPE and COVID-19.
“There was sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) such as aprons, gloves and masks.” from the report
Testing and monitoring
Staff were tested weekly and people were tested every 28 days. People and staff were monitored for symptoms.
“Staff were tested weekly and people every 28 days.” from the report
Plans for illness
The home had an isolation unit and guidance for people who became unwell, returned from hospital or were admitted from their own home.
“An isolation unit with specific zones and procedural guidance was in place for anyone becoming unwell, returning from hospital or being admitted from their own home.” from the report
Approach could be developed
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not give further detail about what needed development.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control changes have been made since the inspection on 15 October 2020?
- 02How often are residents and staff tested now, and what happens if someone has symptoms or tests positive?
- 03How are new admissions, hospital returns and people who become unwell isolated?
- 04What resources did inspectors recommend to develop the home's infection control approach, and were these recommendations completed?
- 05Can you show how PPE, handwashing, social distancing and infection control checks are managed day to day?
This was an announced thematic inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care quality questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2020 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, January 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding leadership and inspectors finding kind, personalised care; dining arrangements needed some improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 7 December 2018. Inspectors observed care and mealtimes, spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, detailed care records, suitable training and good links with health professionals. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and could take part in activities and community life.
The home was rated Outstanding for Well-led. Inspectors found strong leadership, very effective quality checks and a culture where people, relatives and staff helped shape the service. Some people waited around 30 minutes for lunch, and menus were not displayed in an accessible place. The inspectors discussed these issues with the manager.
Kind, personal care
Staff knew people well and provided care patiently and compassionately. Inspectors found that people's dignity, privacy and independence were respected.
“People were extremely well-cared for, relaxed and comfortable.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team and board had a clear focus on people's lives and used feedback to improve the home.
“The provider's vision and values were person-centred to make sure people were at the heart of the service.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff received a wide range of training and were encouraged to develop their skills. They had detailed knowledge of the people they supported.
“Staff were highly supported to meet people's needs through continuous, pro-active and professional development of their skills.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were involved in decisions about their care, activities, food and the running of the home. They could maintain relationships and take part in local life.
“People were supported to maintain their independence whenever possible and personal preferences were respected.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular audits, meetings and feedback to check care and plan improvements. Inspectors considered these systems robust and effective.
“Systems and processes were extremely robust and effective ensuring that quality standards were met and exceeded.” from the report
Waiting for lunch
minorSome people waited around 30 minutes at the dining tables before their meal arrived. The report does not say that this caused harm, but it was an area for improvement.
“some people waited thirty minutes at the dining tables before their meal was served.” from the report
Menus not displayed
minorDaily food choices were not available on tables or in an accessible place. The manager told inspectors this would be addressed.
“Menus were not available on tables or in an accessible location that advertised and kept people informed of the daily food choices.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to prevent people waiting around 30 minutes for their lunch?
- 02How are daily meal choices now displayed so that everyone can see or understand them?
- 03How do you decide whether current staffing levels are enough when people's needs change?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and making changes to care?
- 05What improvements have been made since the December 2018 inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous overall Good rating continuing and Well-led rated Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 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 Charlotte Straker House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.