CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Enhanced Elderly Care Service - Byker Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicine systems and a clean, well-maintained environment, although some medicines records needed correcting.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this focused inspection, although people told inspectors that staff were kind and liked.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was consistently managed, with visible and open leadership. Audits, meetings and incident reviews were used to monitor the service and make improvements.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found the home safe and well-led, with minor medicines recording issues fixed during the inspection.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 4 December 2018. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led after concerns had been received about care. They spoke with 15 people, seven relatives or visitors and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors rated both Safe and Well-led as Good. People said they felt safe, staff were kind and available, the home was clean, and medicines were handled safely. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were robust, and accidents and incidents were reviewed for learning.
A small number of medicines recording issues were found, including incomplete patch charts and missing information for medicines needed as required. These were addressed immediately. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in November 2017.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty. People said call bells were answered quickly and staff were available when needed.
“There's plenty of staff on, they're there if you need something; they have time to talk to me.” from the report
Safe recruitment
Recruitment checks were described as safe and robust, helping the home employ suitable staff.
“Recruitment procedures continued to be safe and robust.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, with no unpleasant smells noted by inspectors.
“The service was kept clean and tidy and no odours were apparent.” from the report
Visible management
The registered manager regularly walked around the home, knew people and relatives, and was open to inspection feedback.
“The registered manager was open and transparent, including to inspection feedback” from the report
Medicines recording
minorInspectors found a small number of recording problems. These included incomplete patch application charts and missing information for medicines given when needed, but the issues were addressed immediately.
“We did find a small number of recording issues which were addressed immediately, including ensuring patch application charts were fully completed” from the report
- 01How do you now check that patch application charts are completed every time?
- 02How is information for medicines needed as required recorded and reviewed?
- 03What changes were made after the concerns that brought this inspection forward?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient for people's needs?
- 05How are accidents and incidents reviewed, and how are lessons shared with staff?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the report does not give fresh ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 January 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.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Good overall, but Safe requires improvement because medicines records were not always accurate.
Inspectors visited on 21 and 25 August 2017. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home had enough staff during the inspection, and people said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were trained, kind and respectful. Care plans were personal and up to date, and people were supported with food, drink, activities and health appointments.
The main weakness was medicines recording. Some records for Warfarin, creams and as-required medicines were incomplete or inconsistent, although inspectors found that medicines were generally stored and given safely and people said they received them on time.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. This was an improvement from the previous inspection in April 2016, when the home was rated Requires Improvement and had breached the staffing regulation.
Improved staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Staffing levels had been increased since the previous inspection.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs in a timely manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind, patient and considerate. Inspectors observed privacy, dignity and meaningful interactions.
“We observed staff interaction with people, relatives and each other was caring and meaningful, giving privacy and showing dignity at all times.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories and individual risks. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were very comprehensive, personalised and centred on the individual.” from the report
Good management checks
The provider checked areas such as care plans, falls, safeguarding, complaints and staffing needs. Action was taken when issues were found.
“The provider carried out regular quality assurance checks to help ensure people received good care.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousSome records did not clearly match the medicines in stock or show that creams had been given. Guidance and recording for some as-required medicines was also incomplete.
“Medicines records did not always support the safe administration of medicines.” from the report
Limited meal choices
minorSome people said there was not always enough choice at mealtimes. The report does not say this affected people's nutrition.
“However, some people felt meal choices were sometimes limited.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines recording since the inspection, and how do you check that records are now complete?
- 02How are Warfarin doses and stock checked and recorded for each person?
- 03How are creams and other topical medicines recorded when staff apply them during personal care?
- 04What written guidance is available for each person's as-required medicine?
- 05How do you respond when residents ask for more choice at mealtimes?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five quality questions, with the overall rating based on the findings from the inspection visits. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 November 2017 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 Enhanced Elderly Care Service - Byker Hall Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Enhanced Elderly Care Service - Byker Hall Care Home →
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Enhanced Elderly Care Service - Byker Hall Care Home →
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
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 £1,160 a week. 30 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.