CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dairy Lane Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely, safe medicines systems, safeguarding arrangements and appropriate responses to health changes. They noted some issues with staff engagement, privacy, dignity, premises maintenance and risk records.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks did not identify several problems found by inspectors. Improvements were needed in person-centred care, dining, accessible information, involvement and the condition of the home.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led and needed more person-centred care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 September 2023. Inspectors spoke with 13 people, two relatives and six staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely, safe medicines systems, suitable safeguarding arrangements and staff who responded to changes in people's health. However, staff did not always spend time engaging with people, and privacy and dignity needed more attention.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Quality checks had not identified problems with the environment, person-centred care, dining, accessible information and management oversight. Inspectors made recommendations in these areas, but did not report any breached regulations.
The overall rating stayed Good because this inspection looked at Safe and Well-led only. Ratings for any questions not inspected were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely, and new staff had the required pre-employment checks.
“There were sufficient staff and staff were appropriately deployed to support people safely” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff followed systems for prescribing, giving, recording and storing medicines.
“Medicines were managed safely. Staff followed systems and processes to prescribe, administer, record and store medicines safely.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff understood how to recognise and report concerns, and inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm.
“People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed incidents and near misses and used them to identify ways to reduce future risks.
“People received safe care because staff learned from safety alerts and incidents.” from the report
Positive staff relationships
People and relatives were mostly positive about staff kindness and support. Staff also said the manager was approachable.
“People and relatives were mostly positive about staff kindness and support.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified several problems found during the inspection. This led to a Requires Improvement rating for Well-led.
“The audit and governance processes had failed to identify the deficits identified at inspection.” from the report
Limited person-centred interaction
needs fixingSome staff did not regularly engage with people outside the direct care they were providing. Inspectors also raised concerns about privacy, dignity and timely personal care.
“However, we observed other staff did not always engage with people, including at lunchtime, except when they provided support.” from the report
Dining and accessible information
needs fixingPeople needed a more sociable dining experience and better information in forms they could understand, so they could make everyday choices and be involved.
“Some improvements were needed to people's dining experience and to ensure people were supported with making choices in everyday living” from the report
Wear and tear
minorSome areas of the home were not well maintained and needed refurbishment to support hygiene and the condition of the environment.
“An infection control system was in place. However, not all areas of the home were well-maintained and there were some signs of wear and tear to the premises.” from the report
Feedback meetings had stopped
minorMeetings for people, relatives and staff had stopped during the pandemic. Inspectors said they should resume, and the manager said this was addressed immediately.
“We discussed with the registered manager that meetings, that had stopped, due to the pandemic, should resume to gather collective views” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to improve staff engagement, privacy, dignity and timely personal care?
- 02What refurbishment or maintenance work has been completed to address the wear and tear identified by inspectors?
- 03How are people now involved in choosing meals and making everyday decisions, especially if they cannot use written or verbal information easily?
- 04Have regular meetings for people, relatives and staff restarted, and what changes have resulted from the feedback?
- 05How has the quality assurance system been strengthened so it identifies problems before an inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key-question ratings were not inspected in this visit and the overall rating used carried-forward ratings where applicable. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 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, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, with a few records and equipment checks to improve.
Inspectors visited on three days, including an unannounced first visit. They spoke with people living in the home, family members, visitors, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, staff files, policies and information held by CQC.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines arrangements, trained staff and appropriate safeguarding procedures.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Care plans reflected people's choices and needs, and people were supported with food, healthcare, activities and staying independent. Inspectors identified some improvements, including calibrating the seated scales, recording daily checks more formally and sending one notification to CQC sooner.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff numbers and recruitment checks were considered suitable.
“People who used the service told us, "I feel safe" and "Very safe.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff spoke politely, asked permission before entering rooms and supported people to do things for themselves where possible.
“Our observations confirmed staff treated people with dignity and respect” from the report
Person-centred support
Care records included people's histories, interests, routines, choices and individual support needs. Families were involved in care planning.
“People's care records were person centred, which means the person is at the centre of any care or support plans” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home had an activities room and inspectors saw many activities taking place. Individual activity plans reflected people's interests and preferences.
“We found the provider protected people from social isolation.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found suitable arrangements for administering and storing medicines. Records were accurate and staff competence was checked every year.
“We found appropriate arrangements continued to be in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines.” from the report
Scales had not been calibrated
needs fixingThe seated scales had not been calibrated, so people's weights might not have been measured accurately. The manager said this would be dealt with and later told CQC calibration had been booked.
“However, the seated scales had not been calibrated which meant people's weight may not be accurately measured.” from the report
One CQC notification was late
needs fixingOne notification was sent to CQC 12 days after the incident and two notifications about the same person were not completed correctly. The report linked this to the manager being away.
“One notification had not been submitted to CQC until 12 days after the incident took place.” from the report
Daily checks were not formally recorded
minorThe manager said daily walkarounds took place, but the home did not record what had been checked. CQC recommended a more formal record.
“We recommend the registered manager records their daily walkarounds in a more formal manner.” from the report
One complaint was not answered directly
minorOne complaint was recorded, but the complainant was not responded to directly. The report says the local authority had dealt with the incidents involved.
“For one complaint, we found it was recorded but the complainant had not been responded to directly.” from the report
- 01Have the seated scales now been calibrated, and how do you check that equipment used to monitor people's health is accurate?
- 02How are daily walkarounds recorded now, and what happens when they identify a problem?
- 03What arrangements are in place to send CQC notifications on time when the registered manager is away?
- 04How do you make sure every complaint is answered directly and that the outcome is explained to the complainant?
- 05What activities are available for my relative, and how are their personal interests and preferences included?
This inspection covered all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; it was a shorter report because the overall rating had not changed from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 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.
Every inspection of Dairy Lane Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 February 2014.
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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
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 £1,210 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.