CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Chester Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Requires Improvement; inspectors found medicines records were not always safe or complete, although people were generally cared for kindly.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 October, 1 December and 13 December 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was clean and infection control procedures were followed. People were supported to make choices, risks were assessed, and there were enough staff during the inspection. People and relatives described staff as kind and caring.
Inspectors found important gaps in medicines records. These included records for creams, PEG care, fluid thickener and medicine patches. Audits had not found these problems. The home was in breach of Regulation 17 on good governance.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. This inspection only assessed those two areas, while the other ratings carried over from the last comprehensive inspection.
Clean and infection-safe
Inspectors found the home clean and were assured that infection prevention measures were being followed, including the use of personal protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Risks were assessed, monitored and managed.
“Risks were assessed, monitored and managed. This was confirmed by people and relatives.” from the report
Kind staff
People and relatives described a cheerful atmosphere and spoke positively about staff being kind, caring and encouraging.
“There was a cheerful atmosphere at the home.” from the report
People involved
The home used meetings and surveys to involve people, relatives and staff in how it was run.
“There were systems in place to involve people, relatives and staff in the running of the home.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousRecords did not always show that creams, PEG care, fluid thickener and medicine patches were managed as prescribed. Some nurses signed for creams they had not applied, and one person's PEG records were missing.
“Records did not assure us that fluid thickener (used for people with swallowing difficulties) was being administered as prescribed” from the report
Audits missed problems
seriousThe home's checks did not identify the medicines recording failures. This led to a breach of the good governance regulation.
“Audits were carried out to monitor all aspects of the service. However, they had not identified the issues we found regarding medicines records.” from the report
Communication
needs fixingSeveral health and social care professionals said communication could sometimes be more effective when coordinating people's needs.
“Several health and social care professionals considered that communication could be more effective at times to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to records for creams, PEG care, fluid thickener and medicine patches?
- 02How do you now check that medicines records are complete and accurate?
- 03How do you make sure staff follow the correct PEG care and medicine patch procedures?
- 04What action has been taken to improve communication with health and social care professionals?
- 05Has a clinical deputy manager been appointed, and who currently oversees people's nursing needs?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the last comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Chester Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, with hand sanitiser still needed on the first floor.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 11 June 2021. One inspector checked whether the home had maintained improvements to infection prevention and control after earlier inspections.
Inspectors found that staff used the right protective equipment and understood how to put it on and take it off. The home was very clean, and infection control checks had become part of daily oversight and staff handovers.
There were not enough hand sanitisers on the first floor. The provider took immediate action and agreed to install wall-mounted holders.
The home was inspected but not rated. Its previous overall rating remained Requires improvement because this inspection did not assess the whole service or the full Safe question.
Infection control systems
Infection prevention and control procedures were part of the manager's daily oversight and staff handovers.
“Systems to support robust infection prevention control procedures (IPC) were now fully embedded into the registered manager's daily oversight of the service.” from the report
Staff understood protective equipment
Staff wore suitable protective equipment and could explain which equipment was needed for different tasks.
“Staff wore appropriate PPE and could explain the types of PPE they were required to wear for any given task.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was described as very clean, with windows open throughout the building.
“The environment was very clean, and windows were open throughout the building.” from the report
Hand sanitiser on the first floor
minorInspectors found that more hand sanitisers were needed on the first floor. The provider took immediate action and agreed to source wall-mounted holders.
“However, additional sanitisers were needed on the first floor.” from the report
- 01Have the additional hand sanitisers and wall-mounted holders now been installed on the first floor?
- 02How often are staff observed to check that they are using and disposing of protective equipment correctly?
- 03What improvements from the previous inspections remain outstanding?
- 04When is the next comprehensive inspection expected to review all five key questions?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not assess the full Safe question or the other key questions, so the previous Requires improvement rating remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 June 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 Chester Court
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 2011.
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.