CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hebburn Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and some safety systems, but staffing, records, care planning and management needed significant improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and mealtimes and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall and in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people’s basic care needs were met, but staff could not always respond promptly and people sometimes waited for meals.
Medicines were stored safely, but medicines records were sometimes hard to read or follow. Care plans were not always personal enough, records were not always accurate, and activities had reduced. The new manager had started an action plan, but the inspection found that improvements were still needed.
Safeguarding systems
The home had safeguarding and whistleblowing systems. Staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“The provider had systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Safe recruitment
Inspectors found that staff recruitment checks were in place to reduce the risk of unsuitable people being employed.
“Staff had been recruited safely, with pre-employment checks in place to reduce the risk of unsuitable people working with vulnerable people.” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking respectfully and patiently to people. Some relatives said staff were kind and went the extra mile.
“Staff respected people and spoke with them in a dignified manner when supporting them with specific tasks.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People’s dietary needs and preferences were recorded and reviewed. Staff used recognised tools to monitor risks such as weight loss and dehydration.
“People's dietary requirements and preferences were respected.” from the report
Improving environment
The home was clean and parts of it had been refurbished to improve safety and accessibility.
“The environment was clean and there had been significant refurbishment to improve it, particularly on the ground floor.” from the report
Staffing and response times
seriousThere were times when staff could not meet people’s needs promptly. Inspectors saw staff struggling with call bells, particularly on the first floor, and the home relied heavily on agency staff.
“Staff were not always able to meet people's needs promptly.” from the report
Care planning and records
needs fixingCare plans and risk assessments did not always give enough personal detail about people’s needs, preferences and ways of supporting them.
“Care plans were not always person centred and focussed on tasks.” from the report
Mealtimes
needs fixingMealtimes were not well organised, and some people had to wait for their hot meals. The atmosphere could also have been more welcoming and engaging.
“People sometimes had to wait to enjoy their meals.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousThe home’s audits had not found or corrected several problems. This was a legal breach of the good governance regulation.
“Auditing and governance systems were not effective.” from the report
Activities and involvement
minorActivities had reduced because of staff absence. People and relatives were not always consistently involved in care planning and review.
“The permanent activities co-ordinator was on leave, meaning the range and number of activities on offer had reduced recently.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing levels on each floor, and how are staff deployed at mealtimes?
- 02How has the home reduced its reliance on agency staff, and how do agency workers learn about each person’s needs?
- 03What changes have been made to medicines administration records and the checks used to find errors?
- 04Can you show how care plans now record each person’s personal preferences, risks and support needs?
- 05What activities are now available each week, and how are residents and relatives involved in planning them?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, with the premises and care both reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 2022 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 Hebburn Manor
8 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 October 2021.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Tyneside
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 £1,140 a week. 34 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.