CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Close House Nursing and Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control practices were safe. This included visitor arrangements, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the coronavirus response.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 December 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because of the CQC's response to care homes with coronavirus outbreaks.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and infection outbreaks safely. They also found the infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating, and it does not provide a full judgement about all aspects of care.
Visitor safety
The home had arrangements to help visitors enter safely and reduce the spread of infection. It also offered other ways for people to stay in contact with loved ones when visits were not possible.
“Measures were in place to support visitors to safely access the service and prevent them from spreading infection during their visits.” from the report
Social distancing
Furniture had been moved so people could stay two metres apart where possible.
“Staff and people were supported to maintain social distancing.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
Staff explained changes linked to the pandemic and reassured people, including about staff wearing face masks.
“People's wellbeing was at the forefront of the care they received.” from the report
Infection control checks
The home carried out quality checks to make sure infection control practices were safe and to identify improvements.
“Quality assurance audits were completed to ensure safe infection control practices were being followed and to identify any improvements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently supported to enter safely and avoid spreading infection?
- 02How do you currently manage testing for people living here and for staff?
- 03How do you make sure protective equipment is used correctly, and what training do staff receive?
- 04How do your current audits check infection prevention and control, and what improvements have been made since this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 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, December 2019
Close House Nursing and Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-organised care, but consent records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 8 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with five people living in the home, staff and a visitor. They reviewed five care records, four staff files and records about quality and safety.
The home was rated Good overall and in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, personalised care and kind staff who knew people well.
People were supported with food, activities, healthcare, communication and maintaining relationships. The home was clean, complaints were investigated and the management team used checks and audits to monitor quality.
Inspectors found that some mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not properly recorded. The manager addressed this during the inspection, and CQC made a recommendation about reviewing capacity, consent and related records. The previous overall rating was also Good.
Caring staff
People said staff knew them well and made time to talk. Inspectors found staff treated people with compassion, kindness, patience and respect.
“Staff treated people with great care, compassion, kindness and patience.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found more than enough staff and safe recruitment. Medicines records were up to date and regular audits checked that medicines were given as prescribed.
“There were more than enough staff employed to provide a safe and consistent service to people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's wishes and choices, and staff adapted support to individual communication needs, interests and preferences.
“People's care records contained personalised information about them, to enable staff to deliver the service in a way people preferred.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were offered activities linked to their interests, including gardening and bird watching. The home supported family visits and links with local schools, churches and the library.
“A variety of engaging activities were organised for people.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits, meetings, surveys and a suggestions box to gather feedback and identify improvements.
“A good quality assurance process was applied to monitor the service.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingThe manager had not ensured that mental capacity assessments were completed for people's ability to consent to support. The manager addressed this during the inspection, but families should check that the changes have been maintained.
“The registered manager had not ensured a mental capacity assessment of people's needs, including their ability to consent to receive support, was carried out.” from the report
Best-interest decisions
needs fixingSome decisions made for people in their best interests, including decisions about bedrails, were not formally recorded using the required documentation.
“best interest decisions had not been made in accordance with legislation, using appropriate documentation to formally record decisions made by staff, families and external professionals in a person's best interests.” from the report
Clarity of records
minorRecord keeping was good overall, but inspectors identified some areas where records needed to be more complete and easier to understand.
“Record keeping was good throughout the service, although we did highlight some areas to improve, to make records more comprehensive and clearer.” from the report
- 01How do you now complete and record mental capacity assessments for people who may not be able to consent to their care?
- 02How are best-interest decisions, including decisions about bedrails, formally recorded and reviewed?
- 03What changes were made after the inspection to make care records more comprehensive and clearer?
- 04How do you check that medicines continue to be given as prescribed and recorded correctly?
- 05How are people's individual interests, communication needs and family relationships reflected in their current care plan?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the accommodation and care provided; the report says all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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 Close House Nursing and Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Close House Nursing and Residential Care Home →
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Close House Nursing and Residential Care Home →
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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.