CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Durham House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that admissions, testing, premises hygiene and infection control arrangements were safe. They also signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
- 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, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found clean premises and safe infection control, but said the approach could be developed further.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 18 November 2020. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, after concerns about cleanliness had been shared with the CQC.
Inspectors found the premises clean and hygienic. They were assured that people were admitted safely, testing was being accessed, and the layout and hygiene practices promoted safety.
The home was following national guidance for new admissions, and people were supported to understand the pandemic and infection control measures. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean premises
The home was clean and hygienic, with regular cleaning of frequently touched surfaces such as door handles and switches.
“The premises were clean and hygienic. Housekeeping staff followed a cleaning schedule that included regular cleaning of high touch areas such as door handles and switches.” from the report
Safe admissions
Inspectors were assured that people were admitted safely and that the home followed national guidance for new admissions.
“The home was following national guidance for anyone moving in.” from the report
Support during the pandemic
People were helped to understand the pandemic and why infection control measures were needed.
“People were supported to understand the pandemic and the need for IPC measures.” from the report
Further development needed
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not give more detail about what needed to improve.
“We have signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What have you changed since inspectors signposted resources to develop your infection prevention and control approach?
- 02How often are high-touch areas such as door handles and switches cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 03How do you safely admit new residents and follow the current guidance for anyone moving in?
- 04How do you access testing for residents and staff?
- 05How do you explain infection control measures to people living with dementia?
This was a targeted, unannounced inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection of the home and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 January 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but medicines records, fire arrangements and dementia-friendly design needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home on four dates between 30 December 2019 and 16 January 2020. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and other professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff treated them kindly, and care was planned around their needs.
Inspectors found some areas needing attention. Topical medicines were not always recorded correctly. There was no evacuation equipment for people whose bedrooms were upstairs, emergency pull cords were not always accessible after falls, and dementia-friendly adaptations were limited. The report says no one had been harmed by these issues.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff promoted people's dignity, independence and happiness.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect. They promoted their dignity and independence.” from the report
People felt safe
People said staff knew them well and kept them safe. The building was clean and tidy.
“People told us they were kept safe by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Good links with health professionals
Staff made timely referrals and followed advice from health professionals. Professionals described good working relationships with the home.
“Staff worked with other agencies to ensure people received timely and effective care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs and preferences. Relatives said they had seen the plans and were involved in decisions.
“People received person-centred care which met their needs.” from the report
Medicines recording
needs fixingTopical medicines were not always documented correctly, although inspectors found no harm had occurred. The provider was asked to review medicines practice against best-practice guidance.
“Although no one had come to any harm in relation to their medicines, staff were not following best practice guidance.” from the report
Fire evacuation arrangements
seriousThere was no equipment to help staff evacuate people whose bedrooms were on the first floor. The fire service was contacted to advise the provider.
“There was no evacuation equipment in the home for staff to support people whose bedrooms were on the first floor.” from the report
Access to emergency pull cords
seriousEmergency pull cords were not always reachable for people who had fallen. The manager asked staff to put this right immediately.
“Emergency pull cords were not always accessible for people who had fallen to the floor.” from the report
Limited dementia-friendly design
needs fixingThe building had limited adaptations for people living with dementia. Inspectors heard that the upstairs layout could be difficult to navigate.
“The service had limited adaptations in place to meet the needs of people living with dementia.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to record topical medicines correctly, and how do you check this now?
- 02What evacuation equipment is now available for people whose bedrooms are on the first floor?
- 03How do you make sure emergency pull cords can be reached after someone falls?
- 04What dementia-friendly changes have been made to help people find their way around the upstairs area?
- 05How would you support someone if their health or end-of-life needs became more complex, given that the home does not provide nursing care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the accommodation and care provided, with all five CQC questions rated; the home does not provide nursing care. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 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 Durham House Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Durham House Residential Care Home →
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Durham House Residential Care Home →
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 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.