CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fleming Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured the home had strong infection prevention and control measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 August 2020. It was part of a national review of infection control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors looked at how the home prevented and controlled infection. They found plans for different pandemic situations, including separating areas and isolating people when needed.
Visitors had to follow safety steps, including temperature checks, an assessment, hand washing and wearing PPE. Staff used PPE appropriately, the home was clean, and infection risks were regularly assessed and reviewed.
The service was inspected but not rated. The safe question was also inspected but not rated. The other four questions were not covered by this inspection.
Pandemic planning
The provider and manager had plans for different pandemic situations. These included dividing the home into zones and isolating or grouping people when needed.
“The provider and registered manager had plans in place for staff to follow a range of scenarios related to the pandemic, to keep people, staff and visitors safe.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors were given clear instructions and had to complete safety checks, use PPE and wash their hands in designated areas.
“Visitors were required to have their temperature taken, complete a COVID-19 assessment form, wear PPE and use designated hand washing areas.” from the report
PPE and cleaning
Staff were using PPE properly and there were PPE stations around the home. Inspectors also found the home very clean, with regularly reviewed cleaning schedules.
“The home environment was very clean and there were cleaning schedules that had been reviewed regularly in line with infection control principles.” from the report
Family contact
The home supported people to stay in touch with relatives and friends through calls, video calls and carefully arranged visits.
“People were encouraged to stay in contact with relatives and friends via the telephone, video calls and visits through windows or in the garden area.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 21 August 2020?
- 02How do you currently manage visits, including PPE, health checks and visiting areas?
- 03How would you isolate or cohort residents if there were an infection outbreak?
- 04How do you keep relatives informed when national or local infection control guidance changes?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 September 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, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some management and food arrangements to improve.
This was an unannounced first inspection since the home was registered in November 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and mealtimes, and checked care records, medicines records, staffing, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff at the occupancy level, safe medicines arrangements, suitable care records and good access to health professionals. People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful.
There was no registered manager in post. A relief manager was running the home while a new manager was being appointed. Inspectors also identified some areas for improvement, including incomplete training for some new staff, food hygiene arrangements, meal times and dementia-friendly features.
The report records the inspection date differently in two places. It says 21 November 2017 in the summary and 6 November 2017 in the detailed inspection section.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff for the number of people living at the home. Staff responded promptly and patiently to requests for help.
“There were sufficient staff to provide safe and individual care to people.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records checked by inspectors were complete and up to date. Staff checked medicines carefully and stayed with people while they took them.
“All records seen were complete and up to date, with no recording omissions.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed warm and respectful interactions. Staff explained what they were doing, asked permission and supported people's choices.
“People were supported by staff who were warm, kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People had a varied programme of activities and entertainment. They and their relatives were consulted about the home and their care.
“There was a good standard of record keeping to help staff provide person centred care and support.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home and provider carried out regular checks covering areas such as medicines, care records, training, accidents, infection control and nutrition.
“The home had a quality assurance programme to check on the quality of care provided.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager during the inspection. A relief manager was providing day-to-day leadership until a new manager was appointed, and relatives had reported anxiety about management and staffing changes.
“A registered manager was not in place. The previous registered manager had left in August 2017 and a new manager had been appointed but they had recently left the service.” from the report
Training before staff started
needs fixingSome new staff had not completed all required safe working training before supporting people. They were not working unsupervised, and managers said this would be addressed.
“We were made aware some new staff had not completed all their training in safe working practices before they began supporting people, although they did not work unsupervised.” from the report
Kitchen protective clothing
minorSome staff from other areas entered the kitchen without protective clothing. Managers said this would be addressed for food hygiene reasons.
“We observed some staff, who worked in other areas of the home accessed the kitchen without wearing protective clothing.” from the report
Meal times and menu information
minorInspectors noted a short gap between some meals and were told some people wanted a later evening meal. Written menus were available, but pictorial menus had not been provided for people who might not recognise written words.
“Written menus were available however, pictorial menus or photographs were not available for people who may no longer recognise the written word.” from the report
Dementia-friendly features
minorMost of the building supported people living with dementia, but memory boxes and themed areas were not available on part of the occupied middle floor.
“Memory boxes were not available that contained items about people's previous interests or other features to help them identify their room.” from the report
- 01Who is the registered manager now, and how has management continuity been maintained since the inspection?
- 02Have all new staff completed the required safe working training before working with people?
- 03What action was taken to ensure staff entering the kitchen wear protective clothing?
- 04Have meal times been changed to reflect people's preferences, including requests for a later evening meal?
- 05Have pictorial menus, memory boxes and themed areas been added for people living with dementia?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, although the report gives both 6 November and 21 November 2017 as the inspection date. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 2018 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 Fleming Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2016.
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.