CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Chase Park Neuro Centre
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but medicines, dignity and management systems were not consistently safe or reliable.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 12 and 19 December 2023. They spoke with 10 people, 6 relatives and 12 staff. They also checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, policies and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Effective and Responsive care. People received support from trained staff, had access to health professionals and therapies, enjoyed activities, and were supported with choices, food and communication. People and relatives generally described staff as kind and caring.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Inspectors found unsafe medicines systems, poor records, unsuitable or dirty bathing equipment, and bathrooms that did not protect people's dignity. They also found weaknesses in quality monitoring, some recruitment records and staff induction.
Kind staff
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors observed warm and positive relationships between staff and people.
“People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Therapy and healthcare
The home had occupational therapy, physiotherapy and psychotherapy teams. People could also access other health and social care professionals when needed.
“The service had its own in house occupational therapy, physiotherapy and psychotherapy team.” from the report
Activities and community access
People took part in activities, visited community facilities and used the home's cafe. Access to the hydrotherapy pool had also been increased.
“During our inspection, people were involved in a variety of activities.” from the report
Staff training and support
Mandatory training was up to date and staff received regular supervision. Inspectors saw staff using hoisting equipment safely and confidently.
“People were supported by staff who were competent and well trained.” from the report
Medicines were not consistently safe
seriousGuidance and records were missing or unclear for some as-needed, variable-dose, topical, self-administered and covert medicines. Some PEG medicines were not given in line with good practice, and stock discrepancies were not always investigated.
“Medicines were not managed safely.” from the report
Bathing equipment and cleanliness
seriousInspectors found a dirty and ripped shower chair, not enough shower chairs, and other damaged or dirty areas. Five additional shower chairs were bought after the inspection.
“We saw a ripped and dirty shower chair in use.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
seriousBathrooms were too small for people to get dressed in them, so some people were moved between bathrooms and bedrooms covered in towels. Inspectors said this did not uphold dignity.
“We observed people being taken between bathrooms and their bedrooms covered in towels, as bathrooms were not big enough to allow them to get dressed in there.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems had not identified several problems, including medicines, bathing equipment and some staffing records. Accident and incident information was not routinely checked for patterns.
“An effective quality monitoring system was not fully in place.” from the report
Staffing records and induction
needs fixingSome employment history gaps had not been explored, one staff member started before a full DBS check with no recorded risk assessment, and agency staff inductions were not in place.
“Staff were generally recruited safely but we saw agency staff inductions were not in place and one staff had some gaps in employment history not explored.” from the report
Complaints recording
minorThe home had a complaints procedure, but it did not keep a clear log showing the outcomes. Inspectors recommended that this be put right.
“A complaints procedure was in place, however a clear complaints log with outcomes recorded was not in place.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that all medicines, including as-needed, topical, covert and PEG medicines, have clear instructions and complete records?
- 02How many shower chairs are now available, how are they cleaned, and how do you make sure they are safe and suitable?
- 03What changes have been made so people can get dressed privately after bathing?
- 04How are you checking accidents, incidents, complaints and medicines for patterns, and how will families be told about outcomes?
- 05How do you check agency staff inductions, employment history gaps and risk assessments before staff work with people?
This unannounced inspection looked at all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous ratings were from the last inspection published on 19 March 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 2024 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, February 2023
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found the home safe and infection controls in place after previous health and safety concerns were addressed.
This was a targeted inspection on 27 January 2023. The inspector checked whether health and safety concerns in one area of the home had been fixed. They also checked infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found the premises safe. New fire doors had been fitted, environmental checks were carried out daily, and equipment and utilities were tested regularly. The refurbished area had been adapted with accessible features and signs to help people find their way around.
The home was clean and infection control processes were being followed. The inspection did not assess the whole service, so it did not change the previous overall rating of Good from March 2020. This inspection was recorded as inspected but not rated.
Safe premises
Inspectors found that environmental risks had been assessed and dealt with. Fire safety improvements and regular checks were in place.
“The premises were safe, and any environmental risks had been assessed and mitigated.” from the report
Infection control
The home was clean and inspectors were assured that staff were using infection prevention measures safely.
“Safe infection control and prevention processes were being followed by staff.” from the report
Adapted environment
An area had been refurbished for people living with dementia. The home also had accessible access and pictorial signs.
“One area of the home had been refurbished and decorated to provide a positive environment for people living with a dementia.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the daily environmental checks recorded, and what happens if a new risk is found?
- 02How are the new fire doors and stairwells checked and maintained?
- 03How will you support a person with dementia to use the pictorial signs and find dining areas, bedrooms and bathrooms?
- 04What arrangements are in place to respond if there is an infection outbreak?
- 05When will the next comprehensive inspection assess the other areas of the service?
This was a targeted inspection of health and safety in one area of the home, with infection prevention and control also checked; it did not assess the full five key questions or change the previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 2023 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 Chase Park Neuro Centre
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2023Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not rated
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 2016.
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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Gateshead
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 £1,240 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.