CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lindisfarne Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. This included the use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control measures during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 February 2021. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus pandemic.
They found the home was clean and that staff were using protective equipment correctly. Visitors had temperature checks and completed health declarations. The home also had handwashing facilities, regular cleaning and an indoor visiting area.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, testing, protective equipment and possible outbreaks safely. The service was inspected but not rated.
Visitor safety
Visitors had checks before entering, including a temperature check and a health declaration. The home also provided protective equipment and handwashing facilities.
“All visitors had a temperature check and completed a health declaration before entry.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and staff regularly cleaned surfaces that people touched often.
“The home was clean, and staff were regularly cleaning frequently touched surfaces.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had guidance on using protective equipment and inspectors saw them following it.
“Staff had received guidance on correct PPE use and were following this.” from the report
Zoning arrangements
The manager used separate areas, staff and facilities to help reduce the spread of infection.
“The manager used 'zoning', creating separate areas of the home with dedicated staff and facilities, to minimise the risk of the spread of infections.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The provider created a screened indoor area where relatives could visit people living at the home.
“The provider had created a screened indoor visiting area for relatives to visit their loved ones.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked before entering the home?
- 02How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned now?
- 03How does the home currently manage testing and possible infection outbreaks?
- 04Are zoning arrangements still used, and how do they work?
- 05What visiting arrangements are currently available for relatives?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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, February 2018
Lindisfarne Care Home is rated Good overall, but inspectors found gaps in mental capacity records, consent records and some medicines records.
Inspectors visited on 6 and 7 December 2017 without telling the home in advance. They spoke with people living there, family members, staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, audits and other documents. They also observed care.
Overall, the home was rated Good. Inspectors found people were treated with dignity, received person-centred care and had access to healthcare, activities and complaints procedures. They found enough staff on duty during the visit, suitable recruitment checks and systems to manage safety risks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective. Some mental capacity assessments were blank or not specific to the decision being made. Some consent records had not been signed. Some as-required medicines were also not recorded on medicines administration records.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in October 2015 and remained Good overall at this inspection. The report says it met all the fundamental standards inspected against.
Respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people respectfully, asking permission before entering rooms and supporting people in a patient and friendly way.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect. We saw staff knocking on bedroom doors and asking permission before entering people’s rooms.” from the report
Person-centred planning
Care records included people's life histories, preferences, communication needs and wishes about end of life care.
“People's care records were person centred, which means the person was at the centre of any care or support plans” from the report
Safety systems
The home had risk assessments, fire safety checks, safeguarding procedures and accident monitoring in place.
“Risk assessments were in place for people who used the service. These described potential risks and the safeguards in place to reduce the risk.” from the report
Activities and community links
People had a daily activities schedule, including social and creative activities. The home also had links with a local church, school and nursery.
“The home's activities schedule was on display and provided details of activities and events taking place each day.” from the report
Management and oversight
The manager used regular audits, walk-round checks, meetings and surveys to monitor the service and gather people's views.
“The service had a positive culture that was person centred and inclusive.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments were blank or did not relate to a specific decision. One assessment did not show that a best interests decision had been made.
“However, for some people their records were blank or were not decision specific.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingSome people who were able to sign had not signed their consent records. Where people could not sign, inspectors did not see a signature from a relative or representative.
“Some of the consent to care and treatment records we looked at were not signed by people where they were able.” from the report
As-required medicines
seriousSome as-required medicines were not listed on medicines administration records, so there was no way to record when they had been given.
“However, some people's PRN medicines had not been recorded on their MAR.” from the report
Stained carpet
minorThe home was generally clean, but inspectors noted a stained carpet on the second floor.
“Although the lounge carpet on the second floor was stained, the home was generally clean and there were no unpleasant odours.” from the report
- 01Have all blank or non-specific mental capacity assessments been completed and linked to the particular decisions your relative may need to make?
- 02How do you record consent when a person cannot sign, and how do you involve their representative?
- 03How do you now record every dose of as-required medicine on the medicines administration record?
- 04What staffing levels will be in place at the times when people need the most support and company?
- 05What action has been taken about the stained second-floor lounge carpet?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions, care records, staff files, medicines records and quality monitoring documents reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 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 Lindisfarne Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 July 2011.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 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.