CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Germaina House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were reviewed, staffing levels were sufficient, medicines were managed safely and infection control measures were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- No rating was given for this question in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- No rating was given for this question in this inspection. The report says people and relatives described staff as kind and caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- No rating was given for this question in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The service was consistently managed and quality assurance systems supported good care. People, relatives and staff were asked for feedback and their views were respected.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care, suitable staffing and effective management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 09 May 2023. One inspector visited, spoke with people, a relative and staff, reviewed care and recruitment records, and observed care.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, risks were reviewed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough suitably trained staff.
The home had systems to check quality and make improvements. People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. The previous overall rating was also Good, published on 21 December 2019.
Staff knew people well
Inspectors found that experienced staff understood people's needs, wishes and preferences.
“People received safe care from experienced staff who knew their needs, wishes and preferences well.” from the report
Safeguarding and risk management
Staff had safeguarding training, followed procedures and reviewed accidents and incidents to reduce the chance of problems happening again.
“Staff had received training in safeguarding and had followed the right procedures when safeguarding risks were identified.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
There were enough suitably trained staff on duty. Medicines were checked and staff had regular competency checks.
“There were enough suitably trained staff on duty at all times.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used quality checks and action plans to support improvements and good care.
“Quality assurance systems were effective and supported the delivery of good care.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
People could receive visits from loved ones at a time that suited them, with privacy offered where wanted.
“People were able to receive visits from their loved ones at a time that suited them.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are each person's risks and care records reviewed when their needs or wishes change?
- 02How do you check that enough suitably trained staff are on duty for each shift?
- 03How often are staff's medicines competencies checked, and what happens if a check identifies a problem?
- 04What infection prevention measures would be used if there were an infection outbreak?
- 05What improvements are included in the current action plans, and how will families be told about progress?
This inspection focused on Safe, including infection prevention and control, and Well-led; no new ratings were given for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 2023 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, December 2019
Germaina House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the building due for updating.
This was an unannounced inspection on 09 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives were not directly mentioned as spoken with during the visit, staff and visiting health professionals, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, safe medicine management, good access to health professionals and care that respected people's choices and dignity.
People and professionals were very positive about the home. The building needed updating, but plans were in place to carry out work the following year. The previous inspection, published on 2 June 2017, had also rated the home Good.
Kind, respectful care
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their preferences and supported their independence.
“People received excellent care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff with the right skills and experience. Medicine records were complete, reviews had taken place and people received medicines when needed.
“There were enough staff on duty at all times with the right skills and experience to support people.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff understood people's needs and preferences and anticipated when support was needed. Care records supported the delivery of personalised care.
“People received person-centred care. Staff knew people well.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home sought professional support quickly and worked with health professionals to manage risks and people's health. Professionals were particularly positive about end of life care.
“Palliative care is excellent. Staff are always with people holding their hand.” from the report
Effective management
Staff worked together well and felt supported by managers. Inspectors found that quality checks were effective and feedback was used to improve the service.
“Staff worked well together to deliver safe care to people.” from the report
Building needs updating
minorInspectors said the service needed updating. Plans were in place to carry out improvement work the following year, so families may want to check what has been completed.
“The service needed updating. Plans were in place to undertake work next year.” from the report
- 01What updating work was planned for the building, and what has been completed?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's care plan reflects their needs, wishes and preferences?
- 03How are medicines, including when-required medicines, recorded and reviewed?
- 04What activities and opportunities to go out into the community would be suitable for my relative?
- 05How would you support my relative if they needed end of life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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 Germaina House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 December 2010.
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
31 live-in carers within about an hour of Redcar and Cleveland
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 £980 to £1,280 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“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.