CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Crosshill Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe. This included visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 February 2021. It focused only on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and infection outbreaks safely. The home had supplies of protective equipment, current infection control policies and plans for an outbreak.
The home was caring for 25 people, although it is registered for up to 30. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor infection controls
Only essential visits were allowed at the time. Visitors were screened, used protective equipment and washed their hands before entering the home.
“Visitors were screened for COVID-19 before entering the main home.” from the report
Protective equipment and hygiene
Inspectors saw staff using protective equipment and practising good hand hygiene. The home had supplies available throughout the building.
“Staff were observed to be wearing appropriate PPE, were bare below the elbow, and were practicing good hand hygiene.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans to keep people's needs met during an outbreak, including alternative arrangements for preparing meals if kitchen staff were unavailable.
“Robust contingency plans were in place to ensure people's needs were safely met during an outbreak.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
The home was clean, with extra cleaning of frequently touched areas and equipment for deeper cleaning.
“The home was clean throughout. A cleaning schedule was in place which included additional cleaning of frequently touched areas such as door handles.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting arrangements changed since this inspection?
- 02How do you now manage testing and vaccination for people living here and staff?
- 03What happens if someone needs to isolate, and which staff care for them?
- 04What is your current plan if an outbreak affects kitchen or other essential staff?
- 05Are your infection prevention and control policies still up to date?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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, November 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, with outstanding personalised activities but some dining and record-keeping improvements needed.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 9 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with 11 people, nine visitors and 10 staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were rated Good. The detailed Responsive section says this improved from Good to Outstanding, because care and activities were highly personalised.
Inspectors found medicines, staffing, safeguarding and risk management were safe. Staff were kind and respectful. People had detailed care plans and were supported with hobbies, activities, healthcare and end of life choices.
The report identified some improvements. People needing help to eat were not supported at the dining table, the dining setting was not always welcoming, some areas were cluttered and management paperwork needed attention.
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were managed safely and staff had been trained and assessed as competent. Staffing levels met people's needs.
“Medicines were managed safely. The provider followed safe protocols for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and compassionate. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and supporting their independence.
“People and relatives consistently said that staff treated them with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised activities
Staff took time to understand people's past interests and helped them continue hobbies. People had access to activities, outings and areas such as a sensory room.
“A lot of thought had been put in to ensure people could continue with their hobbies.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans included people's life histories, preferences and communication needs. People and relatives were involved in reviews.
“People received care and support that was focused on individual needs, preferences and what was important to them.” from the report
Positive management culture
Staff described the manager as approachable and supportive. Inspectors found a cheerful atmosphere and regular forums for people and staff to share views.
“The management team positively engaged with people, visitors and staff and there was a cheerful atmosphere.” from the report
Dining experience
needs fixingPeople who needed help to eat were not assisted at the dining table. Tables were not always set with items such as napkins, condiments or a menu, and inspectors recommended a full dining audit.
“The meal time experience needed to be more inclusive for all people living at the home.” from the report
Clutter and orientation
minorSome areas were cluttered and further work was needed to help people find their way around the home.
“Areas of the home were cluttered, and the registered manager had recognised the need to clear communal areas and walkways.” from the report
Management paperwork
needs fixingThe manager struggled to keep up with filing and other paperwork. The report says more administrative support was put in place immediately after the inspection.
“The registered manager did struggle to keep on top of the paperwork such as filing and would benefit from more administrative support.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to support people who need help to eat at the dining table?
- 02Have you completed the recommended dining experience audit, and what did it show?
- 03What changes were made after the inspection to improve filing and management records?
- 04How have cluttered communal areas and walkways been cleared and maintained?
- 05How will you learn about a new resident's hobbies and make sure these are included in their care and activities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Good, and the detailed Responsive rating improved from Good to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 November 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 Crosshill Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 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 19 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 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.