CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Consort House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed and managed, medicines were given as prescribed, and staff had updated moving and handling training. Inspectors noted that staffing levels remained an ongoing area to improve.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff worked with health professionals. People had access to food, drinks and support with nutrition, and staff were trained to meet people's needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found a strong person-centred culture. People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful, and people's dignity, independence, cultural needs and choices were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences. The home provided activities, communication support, personalised care and compassionate end of life care, and complaints were investigated and used for learning.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Leadership and quality monitoring had improved since the previous inspection. A new governance framework, regular provider visits and additional audits helped identify and address areas needing improvement.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Consort House Nursing Home is Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and improved leadership, but staffing levels still needed monitoring.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 05 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff, managers and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, training records, meeting minutes and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as being at the heart of the service. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, personalised support, safe medicines practice, good food and access to health professionals.
There had been concerns about staffing and safe moving and handling before the inspection. Inspectors found action had been taken, including recruiting more staff and updating moving and handling training. However, some people and staff still felt more staff were needed, so inspectors recommended that staffing feedback continued to be acted on.
The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The provider had introduced a new governance framework and more regular checks to identify and address problems.
Person-centred care
Inspectors found that people were central to the way care was planned and delivered. Staff were motivated by clear care values.
“People were at the heart of the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff kindness. Inspectors observed respectful interactions and support for people's dignity and independence.
“People told us they were treated with dignity and respect” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed. Care risks, including choking, mobility and vulnerable skin, were assessed and managed.
“People's medicines were managed safely, and they received them as prescribed.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had introduced a new governance framework and more regular monitoring. This addressed problems identified at the previous inspection.
“Since our last inspection, a new governance framework had been created to help effectively identify where improvements were required.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingSome people and staff felt that more staff were needed. The provider had taken action, but inspectors said staffing and retention remained ongoing challenges.
“Overall, people and relatives told us there were enough staff to meet their needs, however, some people felt more staff were needed.” from the report
Manager visibility
minorSome people said they did not see the registered manager often enough. The manager said they would set aside weekly time to visit people around the home.
“some people felt they did not see the registered manager frequently enough.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally on duty on each floor and during night shifts?
- 02What has changed since the inspection to improve staff recruitment and retention?
- 03How often are agency staff used, and how do you ensure they know residents' needs?
- 04How often does the registered manager spend time speaking with residents?
- 05How are residents and families told about actions taken after feedback or complaints?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with particular follow-up of staffing, moving and handling, nutrition and the previous governance concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Consort House Nursing Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the service needed to improve its leadership and quality checks.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 6 and 7 April 2017. They observed daily care and lunchtime, reviewed care and medicine records, and spoke with people, relatives, staff, managers and health professionals.
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff understood their needs. Call bell response times and medicine records had improved since the previous inspection. The home was clean, and people received kind, personalised care with access to activities and outside health professionals.
Some people who needed help at mealtimes had to wait for staff. Medicine fridge temperatures had also been outside the recommended range on eight occasions, although action was taken during the inspection. Personal care records were not always stored securely.
The overall rating remained Good, as did Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because the provider's checks had not always found problems with medicines storage, mealtimes and confidential records.
Improved safety
The home had improved its call bell response times and medicine records since the previous inspection. People said they felt safe and staff understood how to report concerns.
“People now benefited from improved responses when they rang their call bell.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly interactions, and people and relatives spoke positively about staff. People's privacy, dignity and personal preferences were taken into account.
“Throughout the inspection there were kind and friendly interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff guidance about people's individual needs, preferences and interests. People were supported with activities, family contact and outside health care.
“People had care plans in place which provided guidance and direction to staff about how to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Support at the end of life
Staff had palliative care training and care plans recorded people's wishes. This supported dignified and personalised care at the end of life.
“People were supported at the end of their life by staff who had received training in palliative care.” from the report
Leadership checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's audits did not always identify issues with medicine storage, mealtimes and confidential records. The manager said the audits would be improved.
“The providers quality monitoring systems were not always effective in identifying areas which required improvement.” from the report
Waiting for help at mealtimes
needs fixingSome people who needed assistance or encouragement had to wait for staff. The manager said staffing levels and the overall dining experience would be reviewed.
“people who required assistance sometimes had to wait for staff to become available.” from the report
Medicine fridge temperatures
needs fixingThe fridge temperature was just above the recommended range on eight occasions in March 2017, with no recorded action at the time. Medicines were moved, a new fridge was arranged and staff received further training.
“records showed that during March 2017 the temperature had been just above the recommended range on eight occasions” from the report
Confidential records
minorPersonal care records were not always locked away and some information was displayed. The manager said immediate action would be taken.
“People's confidential information was not always protected because their personal care records were not always locked away and information was displayed.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing and support during mealtimes for people who need help to eat or drink?
- 02How are medicine fridge temperatures checked now, and what happens if they are outside the safe range?
- 03How are personal care records kept secure and prevented from being displayed?
- 04How has the provider improved its audits so they identify problems with care, medicines and confidentiality?
- 05How are families kept informed and involved in care decisions and complaints?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the report says the service was rated Good overall at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 2017 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 Consort House Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Plymouth
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 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.