CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cheviot Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- There were enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines systems and infection control arrangements. However, some risk assessments were incomplete, unclear or not reviewed promptly.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, supervision and support. People received suitable food, drinks and healthcare, but some staff training was not up to date and capacity records were unclear in some cases.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found staff to be kind, compassionate and respectful. People were involved in choices and supported to maintain their dignity, relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care plans were individual and staff knew people's needs, wishes and preferences well. Activities, family support and end of life care were particularly strong.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible and approachable, and quality checks and feedback systems were in place. The rating fell from Outstanding because safe and effective systems needed to be more consistent and robust.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsive care but some risk and capacity records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 30 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, staff records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive care. Inspectors found kind staff, enough staff on duty, safe medicines management, good support with health and nutrition, and activities that reflected people's interests.
There were some weaknesses in record keeping. Risk assessments were not always completed or reviewed clearly and promptly. Some records about people's mental capacity were confusing. The provider was asked to improve these systems, but no regulations were breached.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently described staff as warm, kind and compassionate. Staff protected people's dignity and took time to listen.
“The staff were very caring, kind and compassionate. They knew people extremely well and were sensitive to their needs.” from the report
Individual support
The home adapted support to people's personal histories, preferences, health needs and emotional wellbeing. People were encouraged to remain independent.
“Care plans were individual and recorded people's diverse needs, wishes and preferences.” from the report
Outstanding end of life care
Inspectors found sensitive, personalised support for people and their families at the end of life. The home had also been commended through the Gold Standard Framework.
“The service provided outstanding end of life care.” from the report
Activities and family involvement
People could choose from activities, entertainment and trips. Families were welcomed, kept involved and supported.
“Volunteers of all ages were actively encouraged to get involved and were welcomed at the service.” from the report
Risk records were not always complete
needs fixingThree of the six care plans checked did not have completed risk assessments. Other assessments did not clearly explain the risks, actions or review dates.
“In three out of the six care plans we looked at, risk assessments had not been completed” from the report
Capacity records could be confusing
needs fixingSome records did not clearly show whether people had capacity to make particular decisions. This could mean a person was not involved when they were able to decide.
“In some care plans, the recording of whether people had capacity or not was unclear and confusing.” from the report
Some training was out of date
minorThe manager had identified that not all staff training was current, including training about the Mental Capacity Act. An external course had been arranged for January 2019.
“The registered manager told us they had identified that not all training was up to date for all staff, for example MCA.” from the report
- 01Have all risk assessments now been completed, dated and given clear review dates?
- 02How do you check that risk information is current and consistent with each person's wishes?
- 03How do you record fluctuating mental capacity so people make their own decisions whenever they can?
- 04Has the planned Mental Capacity Act training been completed, and is all staff training now up to date?
- 05How have you checked that the improvements identified in this report have been fully completed?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous ratings were from the inspection on 5 May 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2018 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 Cheviot Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Good.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- September 2015OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums 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.