CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Conifers Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 March 2021. It focused on how the home was preventing and controlling infections during the coronavirus pandemic.
There were 13 people living in the home, which can accommodate up to 33 people. Inspectors found visitor testing, temperature checks, hand sanitiser and personal protective equipment in place.
The home had several ways for relatives to visit, including booked indoor visits, a visiting pod and window visits. Inspectors also found extra cleaning and regular checks of infection control arrangements.
The service was inspected but not rated. The report gives an assurance finding for infection prevention and control, rather than an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors were tested, had their temperatures checked and were provided with hand sanitiser and PPE. The home also displayed guidance about restrictions.
“All visitors have lateral flow test undertaken. Temperatures are checked, hand sanitiser is available and PPE stocks.” from the report
Family visits
The home offered booked indoor visits as well as pod and window visits. Relatives were supported to visit people at the end of their life.
“The home also supported visiting through a purpose-built pod and window visits.” from the report
Cleaning oversight
Extra cleaning was in place and the registered manager checked cleaning and infection control processes.
“Additional cleaning had been put in place. The registered manager had good oversight of cleaning” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, accessing testing and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Cleaning products
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to support its approach to cleaning products. The report does not say that this led to enforcement action.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to support their approach for cleaning products.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made after being signposted to resources about cleaning products?
- 02How often are infection prevention and control checks carried out, and how are any problems recorded and followed up?
- 03Are lateral flow testing, temperature checks and PPE still required for visitors?
- 04How are indoor, pod and window visits arranged now, including visits at the end of life?
- 05How do you make sure people are tested safely when they are admitted to the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the other areas of care were not assessed and no overall rating was given. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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, April 2020
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led, with limited activities and environmental improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with eight people, four relatives and six staff. They reviewed care and medicines records, observed daily life and checked the building.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people received good care from skilled staff, medicines were managed safely and people's care plans were detailed and kept up to date.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that activities were limited and that improvements to the building did not have a clear plan or timetable. They also saw long periods when people were not stimulated.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published on 28 February 2019. The home remained Requires Improvement for Well-led, while Safe improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Strong risk management
Staff understood people's individual risks and had clear guidance to support them safely. The home had also improved mobility support plans since the previous inspection.
“Staff and the management team had a very good understanding of each individual risk and how to support them safely.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff received regular training, supervision and competency checks. Inspectors found them knowledgeable and able to work with health professionals to support good health outcomes.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled. They received support to carry out their roles effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff promoting dignity, privacy, independence and choice.
“Throughout the inspection we saw very caring interactions between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and life histories. Staff knew people well and updated plans when needs changed.
“People's care needs were assessed, and clear and detailed plans of care put in place.” from the report
Limited activities and stimulation
needs fixingInspectors found that planned activities were limited and that staff did not always provide social interaction outside organised events. Feedback showing dissatisfaction with activities had not led to an action plan.
“The provider's analysis of the January 2020 resident survey showed they identified 33% of respondents were not interested in the activities available at the home but this did not lead to an action plan.” from the report
Environmental improvements lacked a clear plan
needs fixingSome changes had been made, but further improvements were needed for people living with dementia. Inspectors were not assured that the remaining work would be completed promptly.
“Refurbishment to the building was done on a more ad hoc basis with no clear plans in place or a timeline for completion.” from the report
Interactions could be task-led
minorAlthough staffing was considered safe, inspectors observed that staff interactions with people were sometimes focused on completing tasks rather than conversation or activity.
“The service was safely staffed, although interactions with people tended to be task-led.” from the report
- 01What activities are now available each week, and how do you respond when residents say the activities do not interest them?
- 02What is the timetable for the remaining refurbishment and dementia-friendly environmental improvements?
- 03How do staff make sure people receive conversation, social contact and stimulation outside planned events?
- 04How do you check that support is provided promptly when a person's needs arise?
- 05What links does the home now have with local community, religious or cultural groups?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; the provider was not asked to complete a provider information return. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 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.
Every inspection of Conifers Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 June 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
At least 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.