CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Coalville Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, improved medicines systems and good infection control. They also found some outdated or inaccurate risk assessments and missing care plans for one person.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says there were no known areas of concern, but does not give a current rating here.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection were used for the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection were used for the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong oversight, regular surveys and action plans for improvement. A new manager was supported by senior management.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, but some care records and medicines records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 28 January 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because they had received concerns about people's care. They spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, audits and infection control documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, improved medicines systems and good infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Staff supported people to keep in touch with relatives through phone calls, garden visits and online meetings.
Some care and risk records were out of date or inaccurate. One person's care plans and risk assessments were missing, although inspectors found their care needs were being met and no negative impact had occurred. Some medicines records lacked photographs or a signature, and some staff medicine competency checks had lapsed.
The new manager had identified these issues and had action plans to address them. The overall rating stayed Good, but this was partly based on ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection because the other three areas were not inspected during this visit.
Staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors saw staff respond warmly and quickly when people needed help.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Infection control
The home had systems for PPE, testing, social distancing and managing infection risks during the pandemic.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicines improvements
The home had improved its systems after an earlier problem with insulin timing. Records showed blood sugar checks were being completed as required.
“People had their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Family contact
Staff helped people stay in touch with relatives through calls, garden visits and online meetings, and kept relatives informed about care changes.
“Staff had endeavoured to keep people and relatives in touch during the pandemic with regular phone calls, garden visits, and online meetings.” from the report
Management oversight
The provider used audits, surveys and action plans to monitor the home and identify improvements.
“The provider's system of audits ensured all areas of the service were subject to oversight and monitoring.” from the report
Out-of-date risk records
needs fixingSome risk assessments had not been updated for several months, and one person's assessments inaccurately said risks had reduced when they had increased. One person did not have detailed care plans or risk assessments, although inspectors found their needs were being met.
“Some risk assessments needed updating. For example, two people at risk of skin breakdown had not had their risk assessments updated for several months.” from the report
Incomplete medicines records
minorTwo people's medicines records did not have photographs, and one administration record had a missing signature. Managers said these issues would be addressed.
“Two people's records did not have their photos attached and there was one missing signature on an administration record.” from the report
Medicine competency checks
needs fixingSome staff competency checks for administering medicines had lapsed during the pandemic. The checks were being rescheduled.
“They had regular competency checks but some had lapsed due to pressures on the service during the pandemic and were being rescheduled as necessary.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans and risk assessments been updated, especially for people at risk of falls, malnutrition, dehydration or skin breakdown?
- 02How do you check that care records accurately reflect changes in a person's risks and needs?
- 03Do all medicines records now have the required photographs and signatures?
- 04Are all staff who administer medicines currently competency-checked?
- 05What were the ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive at the last comprehensive inspection, and have anything changed since then?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings used for the overall rating carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Coalville Nursing Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but medicines safety needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 December 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living there, visitors, managers and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, training, recruitment and management records.
The overall rating was Good, the same as at the previous inspection in 2016. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. The home had 36 people living there and could support up to 40.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. People generally received medicines safely, but some blood sugar checks were done after meals instead of before them. Some medicines also needed better storage, and medicine audits had not identified these issues quickly enough.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance and comfort respectfully.
“They [staff team] care, they really do care.” from the report
Good support with health and nutrition
People had nutritional assessments and monthly weight checks. Staff recognised health changes and made appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals.
“People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet and to eat and drink well.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home provided a range of group and one-to-one activities, including arts and crafts, cooking and games.
“People were strongly supported to be involved in activities both on a one to one and group basis.” from the report
Blood sugar checks were sometimes late
seriousSome people who needed checks before meals had them taken after eating. This meant staff did not have the information needed to assess whether blood sugar levels were safe.
“People who required their blood sugars levels checked before their meals had their blood sugars taken by staff after they had eaten.” from the report
Medicine storage
needs fixingInspectors found a large overstock of one medicine and another medicine stored in a fridge when this was not needed.
“We noted there was a large overstock of one medicine and another was being stored in the fridge which was not required.” from the report
Medicine audits needed to be more frequent
needs fixingExisting audits had not identified the medicine problems quickly enough. The report recommended increasing audits to weekly.
“We recommend medicines audits be increased to weekly to ensure any shortfalls are identified sooner and more quickly rectified.” from the report
One new person's risk assessments were not updated
needs fixingThe risk assessments for one person who had recently moved in were not yet up to date. The manager said this would be addressed urgently.
“The risk assessments for one person who had recently moved in had yet to be updated.” from the report
- 01How are blood sugar checks timed before meals now, and how is this checked by managers?
- 02What action was taken about the medicine that was overstocked and the medicine stored in the fridge?
- 03Are medicine audits now carried out weekly, and can you show how any problems are followed up?
- 04How quickly are risk assessments updated when someone new moves into the home?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the premises and care, and rated all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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 Coalville Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with 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.