CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Melrose House
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, using protective equipment safely, arranging testing and supporting visits. They also recorded that the home met the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
- 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?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements, but this was not a full care quality inspection.
Inspectors visited the home on 13 January 2022. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
They found up-to-date infection control policies, regular testing, visitor screening, enough protective equipment and appropriate use of it. Cleaning schedules, hand sanitiser and clear reminders about hygiene were in place.
The inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including safe admissions, possible outbreaks, visits and vaccination requirements for staff and visiting professionals.
The service was inspected but not rated. The agency's separate domiciliary care service was not inspected, and this report does not give a full rating of the home's care.
Up-to-date infection policies
The home had detailed policies for managing COVID-19 risks, including when someone tested positive. These were updated when national guidance changed.
“The policies and procedures were updated regularly following any changes in national guidance.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened and had to show vaccination evidence and a negative lateral flow test before entering.
“All visitors, including professionals were subject to a range of screening procedures, including showing evidence of vaccination and a negative lateral flow test before entry into the home was allowed.” from the report
Protective equipment and cleaning
There was enough protective equipment and hand sanitiser. Staff had training and were observed using protective equipment correctly, supported by regular cleaning and clear signs.
“There was an ample supply of PPE for staff and any visitors to use.” from the report
Visits and infection control
The inspectors were assured that visits were being supported in line with current guidance and that the home had arrangements to prevent or manage outbreaks.
“We were assured the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 13 January 2022?
- 02What testing and screening do you currently require from staff, professionals and visitors?
- 03How do you manage visits if there is an infection outbreak or a change in public health guidance?
- 04How do you cover staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and what effect would staff shortages have on care?
- 05Can you explain how you keep your infection control policies and staff training up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the separate domiciliary care service was not inspected and the home was not fully rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 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, October 2019
Melrose House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some training and care-planning updates needed.
This was a planned inspection of the home and its domiciliary care service. One inspector visited on 30 August and 5 September 2019. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives gave very positive feedback. Inspectors found that people were supported safely, treated with kindness, involved in their care and helped to stay independent and connected with others.
There were some areas to improve. Some care home staff had not completed refresher training for several years. Care plans did not include people's end of life wishes. The manager agreed to address both issues. The previous overall rating was also Good.
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were given safely and on time. Inspectors found suitable staffing levels, safe recruitment and regular checks of medicines records.
“People told us staff supported them to take their medicine and medicines were always given on time.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently described staff as caring. Inspectors saw staff supporting dignity, independence and daily routines.
“Without exception, people and relatives told us staff supported them in a very caring way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences and goals. Staff helped people take part in activities, maintain relationships and become more independent.
“People received care based upon their own individual preferences, personal needs and desired goals.” from the report
Good management checks
Managers carried out regular quality checks and acted on issues they found. Staff said managers listened to feedback and concerns.
“Audits seen confirmed issues identified had been actioned and signed off as completed.” from the report
Out-of-date refresher training
needs fixingSome care home staff had not completed repeat training in mandatory areas for several years. The manager took immediate action to arrange refresher training, and inspectors recommended adding training-date checks to governance systems.
“The training matrix identified some staff had not undertaken repeat training in areas the provider considered mandatory for several years.” from the report
End of life wishes not recorded
needs fixingCare plans did not include people's end of life wishes. This applied to people living in the home and people receiving care in their own homes. The manager agreed to review the care plans.
“Care plans for people living in the care home included people's funeral wishes. They did not contain people's end of life wishes.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the refresher training that was out of date at the inspection?
- 02How are staff training dates checked now, and what happens when training needs renewing?
- 03Have people's end of life wishes been added to their care plans, including for people receiving care at home?
- 04How are people and their relatives involved when care plans are reviewed?
- 05How are staff working in the home and in the community kept up to date when there is no formal team meeting?
This was a planned inspection covering all five ratings, the care home and personal care provided in people's own homes; CQC did not inspect wider social care support in people's homes. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 October 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 Melrose House
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 August 2012.
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
30 live-in carers within about an hour of North Tyneside
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 £1,130 a week. 26 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.