CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Crows Nest
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 04 March 2019. One inspector spoke with five people, the manager and staff. They reviewed care records, a staff file, audits and other safety and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, personalised care plans and support with health care, meals, activities and community access.
The home was larger than current best practice guidance suggests for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design and location reduced the possible negative impact of its size. The previous inspection, published on 1 September 2016, also rated the home Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they were safe. Staff understood safeguarding and how to raise concerns.
“People told us they felt safe. They commented, "Yes, I feel safe. They [staff] look after us" and "I am safe.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and written in an easy-read format. Staff supported individual choices, communication needs and longer-term goals.
“People's care plans were personalised and detailed; they were written in an easy read format.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind. Inspectors saw positive relationships and found that people were treated with dignity and respect.
“There were positive and caring relationships between people and staff; people were relaxed around staff and chatted with them in a friendly way.” from the report
Activities and independence
People took part in activities they enjoyed and had opportunities to use the local community. Some people accessed the community independently.
“Some people accessed the local community independently; other people chose themselves how they occupied their time.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors found a friendly atmosphere, good teamwork and regular checks on quality and safety. People and staff could give feedback.
“The home had a friendly, homely and welcoming atmosphere; staff morale and teamwork were positive.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for 12 people and ten people were living there. Inspectors said its size was larger than current best practice guidance, although the design and setting helped reduce the impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How does the home's larger size affect the amount of individual attention and support each person receives?
- 02How will you support my relative's preferred way of communicating and making daily choices?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise a concern, and how will the home respond?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the premises, care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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, September 2016
Crows Nest was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and maintenance still needing attention.
Inspectors visited on 29 June and 7 July 2016 without giving notice. They spoke with six people, staff, managers and local authority officers. They read care and recruitment records and checked medicines, safety records, audits and the building.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy with their care. Staffing levels were suitable, medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean. Care plans were detailed and personalised. Staff treated people with kindness, protected their privacy and supported their choices, activities and contact with health services.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors noted that some best-interest records needed more detail, some training was still being arranged, the garden needed monitoring and a few audit records had not been signed.
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors found clear medicines records, safe storage and disposal arrangements, regular audits and checks of staff competence.
“Safe procedures were in place for the storage, administration, disposal and return of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff spoke warmly with people, respected their privacy and dignity, and supported them sensitively with personal care.
“All interactions we observed between people and staff were courteous and respectful.” from the report
Choice and activities
People helped choose menus and could take part in activities at the home and in the community, including walks, clubs, day care and holidays.
“A range of activities were available to people.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found clear responsibilities and said the new deputy manager had strengthened leadership and supported senior staff to take on more responsibility.
“They had noticed a number of improvements and strengthened leadership since the appointment of the deputy manager.” from the report
Best-interest records lacked detail
needs fixingSome records about decisions made in people's best interests were not detailed enough. The deputy manager said more information would be added.
“Decisions taken in the best interests of people were recorded, however some of these lacked detail.” from the report
Some training was outstanding
needs fixingPractical moving and handling training and a more detailed medicines course were still being arranged. An alternative trainer had been found for the medicines course.
“Face to face training was being booked for staff to complete a practical moving and handling training session.” from the report
Garden and outdoor area
minorThe outside space was overgrown on the first inspection day, although it had been tidied by the second day. The manager planned to include it in regular quality checks.
“There was access to outside space which was overgrown on the first day of the inspection, but had been tidied by the gardener on the second day.” from the report
Some audit records were unsigned
minorA small number of audit records had not been signed, even though managers said the audits had usually been completed. This was raised with the deputy manager.
“There were a small number of gaps in records of audits which we pointed out to the deputy manager” from the report
- 01Have all best-interest records been updated with the extra detail identified by inspectors?
- 02Has the planned practical moving and handling training been completed for all relevant staff?
- 03Has the more in-depth medicines awareness training been completed?
- 04How is the garden and outdoor area now checked and kept inviting?
- 05Are all quality audits now completed and signed, with actions recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 September 2016 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 Crows Nest
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 April 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 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.