CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Covent House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but care records, medicines and quality checks were not always reliable.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 25 and 30 May 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and supportive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable food and drink, good infection control and effective work with other professionals.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Care records did not always give staff enough clear, person-centred guidance. Medicine records were incomplete, some people were not involved enough in food and drink decisions, and quality checks had not identified or dealt with problems quickly enough.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The report says the provider breached Regulation 17 on good governance and record keeping. CQC requested an action plan and will check whether improvements are made.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives were very positive about the staff. Inspectors saw staff speaking with people in a calm, caring way and respecting privacy and dignity.
“The staff are caring and patient, they sit down and try to explain to [Name], it seems that they do care” from the report
People felt safe
Staff understood safeguarding and knew how to raise concerns. People and relatives said people were safe, and inspectors found appropriate action had been taken when concerns were reported.
“Safeguarding concerns were reported and investigated with appropriate action taken to minimise any future risk of abuse.” from the report
Staffing and infection control
Inspectors found enough staff and safe recruitment processes. Infection prevention procedures were in place, and relatives described the home and rooms as clean.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to stay engaged through activities, entertainment and social opportunities, including activities for people living with dementia.
“There were activities, entertainment and opportunities for engagement for people including people who lived with dementia.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with GPs, district nurses, speech and language therapists and social workers. Referrals were made when needed and professional guidance was followed.
“There was communication between staff and visiting professionals, and staff followed guidance provided to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousMedicine quantities did not always match administration records. This meant inspectors could not be assured that medicines were always given as prescribed.
“Quantities of remaining medicines did not always match the records of doses administered, so we could not be assured medicines were administered as prescribed.” from the report
Care records were not detailed enough
seriousSome care plans did not clearly explain how staff should provide personalised support. Records for wound, pressure area and skin care also needed improvement.
“Improvements were required to care records to ensure they provided more detailed information about people's care and treatment needs, including how they wanted and needed to be supported.” from the report
People's involvement in choices
needs fixingSome people living with dementia were not sufficiently involved in decisions about food and drink. The home was given a recommendation to improve this.
“We discussed the lack of choice for people on the second floor, who lived with dementia and their lack of involvement in decision making regarding food and drink” from the report
Quality checks were not effective enough
seriousThe home's audits and governance system had not identified or acted on several shortfalls quickly enough. This included medicines, care records, accident analysis and staff deployment.
“The governance system in place needed to become more robust to effectively monitor and improve the quality of the service to ensure positive outcomes for people.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure medicine quantities and administration records always match?
- 02How do you now make sure care plans give staff clear, person-centred guidance, including for distress, wound care and skin care?
- 03How are people living with dementia involved in choosing their food and drinks each day?
- 04What checks now monitor fluid intake for people at risk of dehydration?
- 05What action has been taken to strengthen governance, including accident analysis, care reviews and staff deployment?
This unannounced inspection covered all five key questions and included infection prevention and control checks; it reviewed six people's care records and multiple medicine records. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 August 2023 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, March 2021
Covent House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors visited on 23 March 2021. This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The visit was announced.
Inspectors found enough suitable personal protective equipment (PPE). They saw that it was stored hygienically and that staff had separate areas to put it on, remove it and dispose of it safely.
Staff followed social distancing and PPE guidance. They understood how to support people with COVID-19 symptoms or positive test results. Inspectors were assured about visitors, admissions, testing, hygiene, outbreaks and the home's infection-control policy.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report was not a full assessment of the five areas of care.
PPE supplies and storage
The home had enough suitable PPE and stored it hygienically. Staff had separate areas for putting it on, removing it and disposing of it.
“The home had sufficient supplies of appropriate PPE which was stored hygienically and kept safe” from the report
Safe working practices
Staff followed social distancing and used PPE in line with government guidance.
“Staff were careful to maintain social distancing and wore appropriate PPE in line with current government guidance.” from the report
Staff knowledge
Staff understood how to support people who had COVID-19 symptoms or had tested positive.
“Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of how to support people that had tested positive or were showing symptoms of COVID-19.” from the report
Staff training
All staff, including catering and housekeeping staff, had training in infection prevention and control.
“All staff, including catering and housekeeping staff had undertaken training in infection prevention and control.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection-control changes have you made since the inspection on 23 March 2021?
- 02How do you currently manage visitors, testing and admissions when someone may have an infection?
- 03How often do staff receive infection-control and PPE training now?
- 04What are the home's current ratings and have there been any later CQC inspections?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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.
Every inspection of Covent House
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Gateshead
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 £1,240 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.