CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Donwell House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention measures, including visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, hygiene and the layout of the home. Safe was not given a rating.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported with food and drink, staff training was up to date, mental capacity processes were followed, and care was coordinated with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate Caring rating. Inspectors observed patient support at lunchtime and found that staff understood people's individual preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans had been rewritten and reviewed. Activities were personalised, communication needs were considered, and complaints were handled appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Audits were up to date, identified issues were acted on, and the management team had improved staff support, oversight and partnership working.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found sustained improvements in personalised care, meals and management, while Safe was inspected but not rated.
This was a focused inspection on 4 August 2020. Inspectors checked whether the home had completed its improvement plan after an earlier Requires Improvement rating. They reviewed care records, menus, activity plans, complaints, audits and policies, and spoke with staff, relatives and health and social care professionals.
Inspectors found that care plans were more personal and kept up to date. Activities reflected people's interests and helped their wellbeing. Meal choices and standards had improved, and people were supported to choose and enjoy their food. Staff training, care reviews and links with other professionals were also viewed positively.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe was inspected as part of a coronavirus infection control review but was not rated. The home was no longer in breach of Regulations 9 and 17, which had applied at the previous inspection.
Personalised care plans
Care plans reflected people's physical and emotional needs, preferences and individual circumstances. They were reviewed when needs changed.
“The management team had revised and rewritten care plans to ensure they were person-centred and continued to meet people's physical and emotional needs.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Activities were chosen around people's interests and included both group and individual options. Staff adapted activities during the coronavirus pandemic so people could remain active and stay in touch with relatives.
“People had enjoyed group and individual activities. During the coronavirus pandemic staff had worked flexibly within social distancing guidance to ensure people could still remain active and stay in touch with relatives.” from the report
Improved meals
People had more varied and seasonal menu choices and were supported to enjoy their meals. Relatives gave consistently positive feedback about the food.
“Feedback from relatives was consistently positive regarding meals.” from the report
Stronger management oversight
The home had improved its audit and quality monitoring systems. Identified issues were recorded and acted on.
“Audits were up to date and any identified issues were documented and actioned.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are care plans reviewed now, and how do you make sure they still reflect my relative's changing needs and preferences?
- 02What activities would you offer based on my relative's interests, and how would you support them if they cannot join group activities?
- 03How are meals chosen, and how would you respond if my relative had particular nutritional needs or disliked the available choices?
- 04What infection prevention measures are currently in place for visitors, admissions and the use of protective equipment?
- 05How do your current audits identify and resolve problems in care and safety?
This was a focused inspection of Effective, Responsive and Well-led, with a coronavirus infection control review under Safe; the other ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 August 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.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care but care planning, meals and management systems needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 15 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Caring. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable safety checks, kind staff and respectful care. People could access health professionals and take part in activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Meals and kitchen hygiene had been poor, care plans lacked detail, some restrictions did not have recorded mental capacity decisions, and quality checks were not yet strong enough.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. This was the home's third consecutive rating at this level. The provider was required to send an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress and return for another inspection.
Safe medicines
People received their medicines on time and medicines were stored correctly. Staff checks were used to monitor medicines practice.
“People received the medicines they needed when they were due; medicines were stored correctly so they remained safe to use.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff responding promptly and supporting dignity, communication and independence.
“People received good care from kind and caring staff.” from the report
Staffing and training
There were enough staff to respond to people's needs, recruitment checks were completed and staff had the training they needed.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs quickly.” from the report
New manager taking action
The new manager was open about the home's problems and had started action on meals, kitchen hygiene, care plans and quality checks.
“The manager was open and transparent about the improvements the home needed to make to provide good quality care.” from the report
Activities and complaints
People had opportunities to join activities and access the local community. Previous complaints had been investigated and resolved.
“There were opportunities for people to participate in activities; people chose whether to take part and staff respected their decision.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
seriousCare plans did not contain enough personalised information to guide staff, including how to support people when they were distressed. CQC said this placed people at risk of harm and found a breach.
“Care plans lack personalised information to guide staff about how people should be cared for.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's governance systems had not driven sustained improvement. New quality meetings and checks had started but were not yet fully embedded, and this was a breach.
“Quality assurance systems were not effective in monitoring the service and promoting sustained improvement in the quality and safety of people's care.” from the report
Meals and kitchen hygiene
needs fixingThe manager said meal quality and kitchen hygiene had previously been unacceptable. During the inspection, one lunch had processed food, no fresh vegetables and no choice, although action was taken that day.
“During lunch people were served with a meal which consisted of processed food with no fresh vegetables.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingMental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions were not always recorded for restrictions placed on people, such as the use of bedrails.
“Assessments and best interests decisions had not always been recorded for other restrictions placed on people.” from the report
Inconsistent leadership
needs fixingThe home had been without a registered manager for an extended period and had employed three managers in two years. The overall rating had remained Requires Improvement for three inspections.
“The new manager was also the third manager employed in the last two years.” from the report
- 01How have you rewritten care plans so they give staff clear, personalised guidance, including what to do when someone is distressed?
- 02What checks now show that meals are nutritious, offer people a choice and that kitchen hygiene remains satisfactory?
- 03How do you record mental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions for restrictions such as bedrails?
- 04What quality assurance checks are now in place, and can you show how they have led to sustained improvements?
- 05Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what progress has been made with registering the manager?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 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 Donwell House
7 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- August 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 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
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.