CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lindisfarne Ouston
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including PPE, testing, visitor screening, cleaning and safe admissions. The provider also said it had measures to reduce the risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- 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?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls and visiting arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 25 January 2022. This was an announced, targeted inspection focused on infection prevention, visiting arrangements and any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
The home had testing, visitor screening, vaccination checks, PPE, hand sanitiser and cleaning arrangements. Inspectors said they were assured that infection risks were being managed in several important areas.
Residents were supported to keep in touch with relatives. Visits were pre-booked, and online, garden and window visits were available when people could not enter the home.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Infection control planning
The home had detailed policies for managing COVID-19 risks, including positive diagnoses and possible outbreaks.
“The home had comprehensive policies and procedures to manage any risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Testing and entry checks
People living in the home, staff and visitors were included in regular testing. Visitors had to complete screening and show vaccination and negative test evidence before entry.
“A programme of regular COVID-19 testing for both people in the home, staff, and visitors to the home had been implemented.” from the report
PPE and cleaning
Inspectors saw enough PPE, accessible hand sanitiser, correct use of PPE and daily cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“Staff had received updated training on the use of PPE and we observed staff wearing it correctly during out inspection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How do you manage visits when a visitor is unwell or cannot enter the home?
- 03How are staffing pressures managed if staff are absent because of illness or infection?
- 04How often are residents, staff and visitors tested when there is an infection risk?
- 05How do you keep relatives informed if visiting arrangements need to change?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 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.
What inspectors found, May 2020
Lindisfarne Ouston was rated Good overall, but inspectors found staffing pressures, dignity concerns and leadership that Requires Improvement.
The CQC made an unannounced planned re-inspection on 13 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, training, policies and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people generally felt safe, care plans were detailed, staff understood people's needs, healthcare was arranged and activities were available.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Inspectors found staffing did not always give staff enough time to provide patient and dignified care. They also found some medicines records and leadership practices needed improvement. The manager took immediate action on several issues during the inspection.
People generally felt safe
People and most relatives said they felt safe and well looked after. Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and risk assessments were regularly reviewed.
“People told us they felt safe and a strong consensus of relatives agreed.” from the report
Good care information
Care plans gave staff useful information about people's needs, preferences and communication. Relatives were involved in assessments and reviews.
“Care plans were detailed and contained good levels of information.” from the report
Healthcare support
Staff worked with GPs, dentists and other health and social care professionals. The home had a good relationship with the local GP and pharmacy.
“Staff liaised with local health and social care professionals to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in varied group and one-to-one activities, including singing, reminiscence and sensory activities. Local community links added to what was available.
“There were some good community links in place, such as with the local church, nursery and allotment society.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingStaff deployment did not always ensure people's needs were met promptly. Staff said the first floor needed more staff time at peak periods, which affected other people.
“Staff deployment did not always ensure people had their needs met in a timely way all of the time.” from the report
Dignity and respect
needs fixingInspectors saw three occasions when staff did not treat people with dignity or respect. The manager was told and took immediate action, including agreeing to review dignity and mealtime audits.
“We observed three instances of staff interacting with people in ways that did not uphold their dignity or treat them respectfully.” from the report
Medicines records
minorMedicines were generally managed safely, but records for covert and as-needed medicines needed improvement. Storage temperatures and opening dates for some creams were not always recorded.
“Temperature checks of the medicines storage room and fridge had not been completed on several occasions.” from the report
Leadership and openness
needs fixingThe Well-led rating fell to Requires Improvement. Audits did not always identify medicines practice issues, and some professionals felt the home was not sufficiently proactive, approachable or welcoming.
“The culture was not always as open as it could be.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff on the first floor during the busy mid to late afternoon period?
- 02What changes have you made to ensure every person is treated with dignity and given enough time and support?
- 03How are medicines records, fridge temperatures and cream opening dates checked now?
- 04How are activities adapted for people at different stages of dementia?
- 05What have you done to make the culture more open and welcoming for visiting health and social care professionals?
This was an unannounced planned re-inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; it followed the withdrawal of the October 2019 report because of an issue with some information gathered. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 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.
Every inspection of Lindisfarne Ouston
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 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.