CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Highcliffe Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The inspection looked only at specific infection prevention concerns. Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and infection outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Highcliffe Care Centre was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 February 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than a full inspection of the home.
Inspectors found systems to reduce the spread of infection. Visitors had temperature checks, lateral flow tests, health declarations and hand sanitiser. Staff and visitors had suitable protective equipment, and the home was clean and tidy.
The home had enough protective equipment, regular cleaning, infection control training and testing for people and staff. Inspectors were assured about the infection control arrangements, but the service was inspected but not rated.
Visitor infection checks
Visitors had temperature checks, lateral flow tests, health declarations and hand sanitiser on entering the home.
“Every visitor had to have a lateral flow test, complete a health declaration and were guided to use hand sanitiser upon entering the home.” from the report
Cleaning
The home was clean and tidy, with extra cleaning during the day, including frequently touched surfaces.
“Additional cleaning was undertaken around the home throughout the day by domestic and care staff.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was enough protective equipment for staff and visitors, with weekly stock checks and further orders when needed.
“The home had sufficient levels of PPE available to staff and visitors such as masks, aprons, gloves and visors.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had infection prevention training, and infection control champions helped with audits and observations of staff practice.
“There were dedicated Infection control champions in the home who assisted with regular IPC audits” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to keep in touch with relatives by video and telephone, and visits were supported in line with government guidance.
“People were supported to keep in touch with their family members via video or telephone calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are visitor temperature checks, lateral flow tests and health declarations still required, and how are they recorded?
- 02How often are frequently touched surfaces such as door handles and handrails cleaned now?
- 03How do you check that there is always enough protective equipment for staff, visitors and people living in the home?
- 04How are infection control champions carrying out audits and checking that staff remain competent with protective equipment?
- 05How are visits and contact with relatives currently supported?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the previous Safe rating was not reviewed and the other key questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 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, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and improvements since four previous breaches, but some care plans and mealtimes needed attention.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 4 April 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe and staff were kind, approachable and respectful. Staffing, medicines, safeguarding, training and access to healthcare were found to be suitable.
The inspection found four previous breaches had been put right. These related to governance, consent, safe care and treatment, and staff recruitment. The home was no longer in breach of its legal requirements.
Inspectors still found some areas to improve. Some care plans did not contain enough detail or did not reflect current needs. One mealtime involved a long wait and cold food, and some communal areas showed wear and tear.
Safe staffing
People and relatives told inspectors there were enough staff. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns and recruitment checks had improved.
“There are enough staff and they are around when needed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw a friendly atmosphere. Staff knew people well, listened to them and respected their privacy, dignity and choices.
“There was a caring and friendly atmosphere in the home between staff and people.” from the report
Good health support
People had access to GPs and other healthcare professionals. Staff followed specialist advice and monitored nutrition where needed.
“People had good access to a range of healthcare services.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had made improvements since the previous inspection. Management used audits and feedback to check quality and plan further changes.
“The service was no longer in breach of its legal requirements.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not give staff enough clear guidance about maintaining independence, responding to distress or reducing risks. Three nutrition plans and one falls plan did not accurately reflect current needs.
“Three nutritional care plans did not accurately reflect people's current needs and a care plan where there was a risk of falling did not contain guidance to mitigate the risk.” from the report
Mealtimes
needs fixingInspectors found that staff organisation in the dining rooms needed to improve. One person waited over an hour and a half for food, which was cold by the time it arrived.
“One staff member gave full assistance to three people at the same time and it took over an hour and a half for them to receive their meals, by which time their meal was cold and unappetising.” from the report
Communal areas needed refurbishment
minorThe home was being refurbished, but some communal areas showed wear and tear. The manager provided an action plan for this work.
“There was a programme of refurbishment, but some communal areas of the home were showing signs of wear and tear.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that care plans reflect each person's current nutrition, falls and independence needs?
- 02What clear guidance is available for staff about responding to distressed behaviour and giving medicines prescribed for use when needed?
- 03What changes have been made to staffing and organisation at mealtimes so people do not wait for food and meals remain hot?
- 04Has the refurbishment of communal areas been completed, and what changes were made to support people living with dementia?
- 05Is the manager now registered with the CQC, and how are audits and feedback being used to maintain the Good rating?
This was an unannounced planned follow-up inspection covering all five key questions and checking improvements after the previous Requires Improvement rating and four breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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 Highcliffe Care Centre
3 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
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 £1,210 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.