CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Mary Seacole Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control systems were safe. They found suitable arrangements for visitors, PPE, testing, isolation and preventing cross-contamination.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the targeted visit.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 23 December 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures because the home was being used as a designated setting for people discharged from hospital with Covid-19.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, including booked visits, staggered times, temperature checks and contact records. Staff had suitable personal protective equipment, regular supplies and training. People and staff were tested regularly, and separate staffing and access arrangements were used for the isolation unit.
The home was inspected but not rated. The safe question was also inspected but not rated. Inspectors said they were assured that infection prevention and control systems were safe.
Controlled visiting
Visits were arranged in advance and staggered to reduce congestion. Exceptions allowed more than one relative where someone needed help or was receiving end of life care.
“Family members visiting people in the service had to arrange an appointment.” from the report
PPE supplies and training
Staff had a regular supply of PPE, with extra items available. They were encouraged and trained to use it safely.
“Staff were provided full personal protective equipment (PPE) and there was a regular supply delivered to the service weekly.” from the report
Separate isolation arrangements
The isolation unit had separate staffing and entrance and exit points. This was intended to reduce the risk of infection spreading to other parts of the home.
“We saw that the isolation unit in the service was staffed separately from the rest of the nursing home.” from the report
Testing and self-isolation
People and staff were tested regularly in line with government guidance. People who tested positive were supported to self-isolate.
“People and staff were tested regularly in line with government testing guidance for care homes.” from the report
Further guidance needed
minorInspectors signposted resources to help managers and senior staff fully understand the requirements for designated settings. The report does not say that this led to a breach.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach around designated settings so that managers and senior staff had a full understanding of the requirements.” from the report
- 01How are visits currently arranged, and what infection control checks are used when relatives arrive?
- 02What PPE is available now, and how are staff trained and checked on using it safely?
- 03How are people who test positive isolated, and are isolation areas still staffed separately?
- 04How are people and staff tested for Covid-19 now?
- 05What changes were made after inspectors signposted resources about designated settings?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service and the safe question were inspected but not rated, and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 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, April 2020
Mary Seacole Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and communication needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 19 February, 26 February and 3 March 2020. Inspectors spoke with five people, four relatives and 11 staff. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicine records, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was caring and generally safe. People were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and infection control was good. Staff treated people with dignity, respected their cultural and religious needs, and supported their independence.
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People had access to health professionals, activities and end of life support. Inspectors found some delays in responding to requests, mixed views about food, and recruitment records were not readily available at the home.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good care overall, but not that every part of the service was perfect.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe and well looked after. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
“People and relatives told us they felt safe at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, dignity and respect. Cultural and religious needs were considered.
“Staff showed gentleness and patience in their approach.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, choices and communication methods. Staff knew people well and supported independence.
“Care plans were person centred and included people's choices and likes and dislikes.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home carried out audits and reviewed incidents and complaints. Learning was shared with staff to improve care.
“Systems for monitoring the quality of the service were in place and regular audits took place.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorThe provider had checked staff recruitment, but the records were not available at the home for review. Inspectors made a recommendation about keeping these records available.
“However, records related to recruitment were not available but had been confirmed as being in place using the provider checking system.” from the report
Some delays at mealtimes
needs fixingInspectors saw one person wait for support while a staff member helped someone else. Managers had identified mealtime staffing as an area for improvement.
“Although most people received their meals on time, we observed one person who waited for the member of staff to finish assisting another person before being supported.” from the report
Requests not always followed up
needs fixingSome areas of care were not always provided as people had requested. One person's concerns had taken longer than expected to resolve.
“We found some areas of care were not always delivered in line with people's requests for care.” from the report
Mixed views about communication and food
minorSome people were happy with the food, while others were unsure what they would receive. Some relatives also wanted more contact with staff and managers.
“Whilst we received mostly positive feedback from people, some relatives felt communication with staff could be better.” from the report
- 01How have you improved staffing and support at mealtimes since the inspection?
- 02How quickly do staff usually respond to call bells, and how do you check this?
- 03What action has been taken when people's requests for care were not followed up?
- 04How are staff recruitment records kept and made available at the home?
- 05How do you gather and act on feedback about food and communication with relatives?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the previous Good ratings from 2017 remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 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 Mary Seacole Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 June 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hackney
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
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.