CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Currergate Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Currergate Nursing Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care but care records did not always keep pace with people's needs.
Inspectors visited without notice on 27 September 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also reviewed care plans, training records, medicines records, audits and other documents.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, care and leadership. Inspectors found that people felt safe, medicines were given as prescribed, staff were trained and supported, and staff treated people kindly. The home had enough staff overall and worked with other health professionals.
The Responsive rating was Requires Improvement. Some care plans, food and fluid charts, oral health records and end of life plans were not always complete or regularly reviewed. Inspectors did not find that this had directly harmed people, but said it could increase the risk of care not matching people's needs.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and with compassion. Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“We observed staff were consistently positive in their interactions with people, smiling and making people feel at ease.” from the report
Improved staff training
The previous problem with out-of-date training had been addressed. Records showed staff training was current and their practical skills were checked.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and staff training was now up-to-date.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored securely and administration records were generally well completed. People said they received their medicines consistently.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) were well completed which provided assurance these medicines were given as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People had access to varied activities based on their interests. Staff also provided companionship and helped people take part in the garden and trips out.
“An activities co-ordinator was employed to provide meaningful activity to people.” from the report
Good management oversight
The management team was described as visible and approachable. Audits and meetings were used to identify issues and plan improvements.
“Audits were completed, which were effective in identifying issues and ensured they were resolved.” from the report
Care plans were not always current
needs fixingSome plans were too brief or had not been updated when short-term stays became permanent. This could increase the risk of care not matching people's needs.
“Some people's care plans were rather brief and needed more detail recording to reflect the knowledge of staff and care being delivered in practice.” from the report
Monitoring records needed better review
needs fixingSome food and fluid charts were not completed consistently and needed regular review by nursing staff. Some oral health care plans were also missing.
“We did identify that some food and fluid charts needed completing in a more consistent way to evidence the food some people received.” from the report
End of life plans were inconsistent
needs fixingNot everyone who needed end of life care had an appropriate plan in place. The manager took action after this was raised.
“Some people had end of life care plans in place, but this was not consistently the case.” from the report
Some recording and safety checks needed attention
minorThere were inconsistencies in recording topical creams, and one premises risk assessment needed updating. One person's fingernails also needed cleaning.
“We found some inconsistencies in the recording of creams.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every person's care plan is detailed, current and reviewed regularly?
- 02How are food and fluid charts checked by nursing staff, and what happens if records are incomplete?
- 03How do you make sure people receiving palliative or end of life care have an appropriate plan?
- 04What changes have been made to recording topical creams and updating premises risk assessments?
- 05How do you check that care plans accurately reflect the needs of people who move from assessment or respite care to permanent care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good, while the Effective rating improved and the Responsive rating deteriorated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 November 2018 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 2016
Currergate Nursing Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found staff training and some medicines records needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 October 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They looked at care records, training records, medicines records, policies and the building.
The home was rated Good for safe, caring, responsive and well-led care. Inspectors found enough staff, good safeguarding knowledge, suitable risk assessments and caring relationships. People were involved in decisions, and care plans reflected their needs and preferences.
Effective care was rated Requires Improvement. Some staff training had expired, including dementia awareness, safeguarding and first aid. Inspectors also found missing protocols for medicines given when needed, and some medicines stock records were not carried forward. The overall Good rating means the home met the standard in most areas, but these weaknesses required action.
Enough staff
Inspectors found consistent staffing and saw that call bells were answered promptly. Staff worked calmly and had time to support people without being hurried.
“There were sufficient staff available to meet the needs of people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People's privacy and dignity were respected. Staff knew people well and involved them in choices about their care.
“People's privacy and dignity was maintained and staff were caring and considerate as they supported people.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans recorded people's needs, risks, routines and preferences. Daily records showed that support was changed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans reflected the identified needs of people and the risks associated with these needs.” from the report
Good oversight
The home had audits, incident checks and systems for handling complaints. Inspectors found that complaints had been dealt with within the provider's timescales.
“Effective systems were in place to monitor and evaluate any concerns or complaints received and to ensure learning outcomes or improvements were identified from these.” from the report
Expired staff training
seriousTraining was not always kept up to date. This included dementia awareness, safeguarding and first aid, and this led to a breach of the staffing regulation.
“some subject areas had lapsed for a significant portion of the staff team including dementia awareness, safeguarding and first aid.” from the report
Missing as-needed medicine protocols
needs fixingThere were no written protocols to help nurses decide consistently when and why some medicines should be given when needed. Staff could explain the safe use of these medicines, but the required paperwork was missing.
“No PRN protocols existed to help nursing staff consistently decide when and under what conditions the medicine should be administered.” from the report
Incomplete medicine stock records
needs fixingExisting medicine stock was not always carried from one administration record to the next. This made it difficult to account accurately for boxed medicines, and the issue had already been found in an audit.
“nursing staff were not carrying forward existing stocks of medicines from one MAR sheet to the next which made it difficult to accurately account for boxed medicines.” from the report
- 01Have all staff training records now been brought up to date, especially dementia awareness, safeguarding and first aid?
- 02What written protocols are now in place for medicines given when needed?
- 03How do you now carry medicine stock balances from one medicine administration record to the next?
- 04What action was taken in response to the Regulation 18 breach, and was it confirmed to CQC?
- 05How do you check that problems found by audits are corrected promptly?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors also made a phone call to a health professional on 10 October 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 November 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 Currergate Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.
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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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 £1,250 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.