CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Marske Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, staff were safely recruited, and medicines and infection control were handled safely. Some guidance for medicines taken when needed was unclear but was updated during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and supported people effectively, including with moving and handling, eating and drinking, healthcare and communication. The provider was reviewing supervision and appraisal so staff had better opportunities for private one-to-one feedback.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in care planning, supported to make choices and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed when people's needs changed. People were supported with activities, communication, family contact, community access and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear leadership, good communication and systems to monitor quality and make improvements. People, relatives and staff were consulted and their views were listened to.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Marske Hall was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff supervision and medicines guidance being reviewed.
This was an unannounced inspection over three visits in September 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, volunteers and managers. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, well-managed risks, safe medicines systems, personalised care and good access to activities, healthcare and the community.
There were some areas being improved. The home was reviewing how staff received regular private supervision, recording more of the knowledge staff had about people's preferences, and clarifying some guidance for medicines taken when needed. The previous rating was Good in 2017 under the previous provider.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and choices. Staff knew people well and supported them in a person-centred way.
“People's care plans and risk assessments reflected their needs and preferences and staff were knowledgeable about the level of support people required.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed calm, sensitive interactions. People were involved in decisions and supported to maintain dignity and independence.
“We observed staff interact with people in a caring and sensitive manner.” from the report
Activities and community access
People could maintain hobbies, try new interests and take part in activities inside and outside the home. The accessible minibus and adapted taxis helped people attend appointments and go out.
“People were supported to maintain hobbies, try new interests and to access the community.” from the report
Quality oversight
The home had systems to check the quality of care, learn from incidents and make improvements.
“There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor the service and drive improvements where required.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff said supervision did not always give them a regular private one-to-one opportunity to provide recorded feedback. The provider reviewed the process after inspectors raised this.
“However, some staff told us the process did not always provide regular opportunity for them to provide confidential recorded feedback on a one to one basis.” from the report
Recording people's preferences
minorSome knowledge about people's likes, dislikes and what made them happy or sad was not yet recorded. The home was reviewing care plans to capture this information for new staff.
“This was an area under management review to ensure staff knowledge was recorded for the benefit of new employees.” from the report
Guidance for medicines taken when needed
needs fixingSome protocols were unclear about when medicines taken when needed should be given. They were updated during the inspection.
“Some associated protocols were not clear and were updated during the inspection to ensure staff only administered 'as required' medicines when it was safe to do so.” from the report
- 01How often will my relative's key staff receive private one-to-one supervision, and how will their feedback be recorded?
- 02How do you make sure new staff know my relative's likes, dislikes, communication methods and what makes them happy or upset?
- 03What changes were made to the protocols for medicines given when needed, and how are staff checked as competent to follow them?
- 04How many regular staff currently work with my relative, and how often are agency staff used?
- 05How will my relative's activities, community access and personal goals be planned and reviewed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; the report describes it as the first inspection of the newly registered service, while the previous Good rating was under the previous provider in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 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.
Every inspection of Marske Hall
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- September 2015Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 July 2019.
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.