CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Coniston House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about testing and safe admissions, but not about protective equipment, social distancing or managing infection outbreaks. They also found a cleaning issue and a lack of clear signs.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Coniston House Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found visiting and testing arrangements in place, but important gaps in COVID-19 infection controls.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. It looked mainly at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 outbreak, and also asked about staffing pressures.
The home supported face-to-face and virtual visits. Visitors were booked in, asked health questions and required to show a negative lateral flow test. People and staff were tested regularly, and the report says staff were vaccinated.
Inspectors found several weaknesses. Social distancing was not well supported, suitable personal protective equipment stations were not provided for people isolating in bedrooms, and staff did not always wear the right protective equipment. There was also a lack of clear signs about isolation and the outbreak, and one area needed cleaning.
The overall service and Safe rating were both recorded as 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the inspection did not give a quality rating such as Good or Requires improvement.
Regular testing
People living in the home and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19.
“People and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19.” from the report
Health professional links
The home kept links with outside health professionals, including through virtual consultations, so people could receive care and treatment.
“The registered manager maintained links with external health professionals to enable people to receive the care and intervention they needed.” from the report
Protective equipment
seriousInspectors were not assured that protective equipment was being used safely and effectively. Staff did not always wear suitable equipment when supporting people who were isolating, increasing the risk of cross-contamination.
“We were not assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Social distancing
seriousThe layout and seating did not support social distancing, including during a COVID-19 outbreak.
“Seating arrangements in the home did not promote social distancing especially at a time when there was an outbreak of COVID-19.” from the report
Outbreak information
needs fixingThere were not enough clear signs telling visitors that the home was in an outbreak or showing which bedrooms were being used for isolation.
“There was no signage to inform visitors that the home was in an outbreak and signage to advise visitors and staff bedrooms where someone was COVID-19 positive and isolating.” from the report
Cleaning
needs fixingMost areas were clean and maintained, but inspectors found one area that needed cleaning.
“One area of the home needed to be cleaned to maintain hygiene standards.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the PPE stations for people isolating in their bedrooms?
- 02How do you now check that staff wear the correct protective equipment when supporting people who are isolating?
- 03How do you manage seating and social distancing during an outbreak?
- 04What signs are now displayed to show visitors that there is an outbreak and which bedrooms are being used for isolation?
- 05What action was taken to clean the area identified by inspectors, and how is cleanliness checked now?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it did not rate the other four questions or the overall service. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 2022 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 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, testing, admissions, social distancing, shielding and personal protective equipment safely. They also found good hygiene and cleanliness, with suitable arrangements for preventing and managing outbreaks.
The overall service was inspected but not rated. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a standard overall rating.
Visitor arrangements
The home had clear information and booking arrangements for visitors. It also offered window visits, video calls and essential family carer visits.
“The provider had developed clear guidance and protocols for visitors in response to the recent government guidance.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
Staff had received infection-control training and were seen wearing suitable protective equipment. There were designated areas for putting it on and taking it off safely.
“Staff were seen to be wearing appropriate PPE. There were designated areas to ensure PPE could be put on and taken off safely.” from the report
Cleanliness
Inspectors found the home very clean. Some flooring had also been replaced with materials that were easier to clean.
“We saw high standards of cleanliness throughout the home.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans for managing outbreaks and had contained three outbreaks successfully.
“The home had experienced three outbreaks which had been successfully contained.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do visits work now, and what alternatives are available if an in-person visit is not possible?
- 02What infection-control training do staff receive now, and how do you check that personal protective equipment is used correctly?
- 03How are residents and staff tested, and what happens if there is a suspected outbreak?
- 04Have the outbreak plans or infection-control arrangements changed since this inspection?
- 05How do you keep relatives updated about changes to visiting arrangements or infection risks?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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.
Every inspection of Coniston House Care Home
5 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 May 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.