CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Darland House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing, admission arrangements, hygiene and infection outbreak management. They were concerned that people who had recovered from COVID-19 could remain in the proposed designated area for several months, creating a risk of reinfection.
- 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; infection controls were good, but the proposed COVID-19 designated setting was judged unsuitable.
Inspectors visited the home on 21 January 2021. The inspection was announced and focused on infection prevention and control, because the home had been proposed as a designated setting for people leaving hospital with COVID-19.
Inspectors found good arrangements. Living areas were self-contained, staff were assigned to specific areas, rooms had occupancy limits, and testing and visitor controls were in place. They were assured that infection prevention and control guidelines were being followed.
However, people who had recovered from COVID-19 could remain in the proposed designated area for three to six months while waiting for another room or accommodation. Inspectors said this created a risk of reinfection. The provider and local authority agreed that the home did not meet the criteria, and the application was withdrawn.
This was not a rated inspection. Safe was recorded as 'Inspected but not rated', and the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Separate living areas
Each living area was self-contained, with its own laundry facilities and assigned care and domestic staff. Staff used key-fob access and did not move between areas.
“Each living area, including the proposed designated setting, was self-contained.” from the report
Testing arrangements
Staff took part in weekly testing and visitors were given lateral flow tests.
“The service participated in weekly testing for staff and carried out lateral flow testing for visitors.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had good infection prevention and control arrangements, including PPE, social distancing and hygiene practices.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines.” from the report
Risk of reinfection
seriousPeople who had recovered from COVID-19 could remain in the proposed designated area until another room or suitable accommodation became available. Senior managers said this could take three to six months.
“There was a risk therefore that people could become re-infected.” from the report
- 01How are people who have recovered from COVID-19 kept separate from people who have not had the infection?
- 02Do staff still work within one living area, rather than moving between areas?
- 03What testing is now offered to staff, residents and visitors?
- 04What arrangements are in place if someone needs to be isolated after admission or during an infection outbreak?
- 05Has anything changed since the application to become a designated setting was withdrawn?
This was an announced inspection focused on infection prevention and control and the proposed COVID-19 designated setting; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, but the home was not ready to be a designated care setting.
Inspectors visited on 6 November 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They were assured that the home was using PPE safely, following social distancing and shielding rules, managing visitors, testing people and staff, and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
The home had good face-to-face infection control training and a structured system for checking its arrangements. However, it was not suitable at that time to operate as a designated care setting because people were living in the proposed area and plans for a separate staff team had not been agreed.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not give a new overall quality rating.
Infection control training
Staff had received face-to-face training and assessment on infection prevention, PPE and hand hygiene.
“Staff had received a good level of face to face training and assessment for infection prevention and control including how to use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) effectively and how to maintain good hand hygiene.” from the report
Regular checks
The provider had a structured system for auditing infection prevention and control and sharing good practice between locations.
“The provider had an effective and well-structured system for auditing infection prevention and control.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
Visits had to be booked, and staff contacted visitors on the day to explain the procedure and check for Covid-19 symptoms.
“Visits to the service had to be booked in advance.” from the report
Not ready as a designated care setting
needs fixingThe home was not suitable at the time of inspection for the proposed role caring for people discharged from hospital with a positive Covid-19 status. People were living in the proposed area and a separate staff team had not yet been agreed.
“However, at the time of inspection the service was not suitable for the purposes of a designated care setting.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the inspection to make the proposed designated care area suitable?
- 02Was a separate staff team agreed for the designated care area, and how was this arranged?
- 03How are staff currently trained and assessed in PPE use, hand hygiene and infection prevention?
- 04How are visitor bookings, symptom checks and testing arrangements managed now?
- 05How often are infection prevention and control arrangements audited, and what happens when gaps are found?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 November 2020 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 Darland House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway
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. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.