Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Donwell House

Goodpublished 27 August 2020, 6 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
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.
The latest report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are care plans reviewed now, and how do you make sure they still reflect my relative's changing needs and preferences?
  2. 02What activities would you offer based on my relative's interests, and how would you support them if they cannot join group activities?
  3. 03How are meals chosen, and how would you respond if my relative had particular nutritional needs or disliked the available choices?
  4. 04What infection prevention measures are currently in place for visitors, admissions and the use of protective equipment?
  5. 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.

An earlier report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Care plans lacked detail

    serious

    Care 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

    serious

    The 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 fixing

    The 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 fixing

    Mental 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 fixing

    The 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
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How have you rewritten care plans so they give staff clear, personalised guidance, including what to do when someone is distressed?
  2. 02What checks now show that meals are nutritious, offer people a choice and that kitchen hygiene remains satisfactory?
  3. 03How do you record mental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions for restrictions such as bedrails?
  4. 04What quality assurance checks are now in place, and can you show how they have led to sustained improvements?
  5. 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Donwell House

7 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.

  1. August 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Donwell House →

  2. September 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Effective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Donwell House →

  3. November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. May 2017Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. November 2016Inadequatestayed Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. July 2016Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. September 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. June 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. December 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. January 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. August 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  15. July 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  16. January 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  17. 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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.”
Judith W., about Petty Tutsirai C.
See live-in carers near SunderlandProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.