CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Nightingale Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. This included PPE, testing, visitor arrangements, cleaning, social distancing and the home's infection control policy.
- 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and safe arrangements for visitors, activities and daily life.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 11 February 2021. It focused on how the home was preventing and controlling COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing, following social distancing rules and keeping the premises clean. They also found safe arrangements for visitors, including a designated outdoor visiting area.
Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing through smaller activities, one-to-one support and video calls. The report gives no overall quality rating because this was a focused inspection, not a full inspection of all areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to use PPE, provide a negative COVID-19 test, have their temperature checked and complete NHS Track and Trace information. Relatives could also visit in a designated outdoor visiting area.
“People were supported to receive organised visits from relatives in a designated safe outdoor 'visiting pod' area with robust cleaning and personal protective equipment [PPE] procedures in place.” from the report
PPE supplies and training
The home had suitable supplies of PPE and separate areas for putting it on, removing it and disposing of it. Staff received infection control training and checks on their use of PPE.
“The home had ample supplies of appropriate PPE which was stored hygienically and kept safe.” from the report
Cleaning and social distancing
Extra cleaning and deep cleaning were carried out where needed. People could use shared areas safely while following social distancing practices.
“Additional cleaning of all areas and frequent touch surfaces was in place and being carried out and recorded regularly by housekeeping staff.” from the report
Wellbeing and communication
Staff adapted activities into smaller groups or one-to-one sessions. They helped people stay in contact with others using social media and video calls.
“Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing. Meaningful activities were adapted and taking place in smaller groups or one to ones.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since the inspection?
- 02How are visits from relatives organised now, and what PPE or testing is required?
- 03How do you check that staff continue to use PPE correctly?
- 04How are activities and video calls being provided for people who need social or emotional support?
- 05What were the home's most recent infection control audit findings?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 19 and 20 April 2018. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals. They also checked care plans, staff records, medicines records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were administered safely, risks were assessed, staffing levels met people's needs and fire drills included night staff.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in March 2017, when it was rated Requires Improvement and breached Regulation 12 about safe care and treatment. At this inspection, inspectors said the provider had achieved compliance with that regulation.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored and given safely. Records showed people received their medicines as prescribed, with staff training and checks in place.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and treated them with dignity. Inspectors saw staff give people their full attention and respond promptly to call bells.
“Staff were caring and kind towards the people they supported.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Staff used this information to support people in ways they preferred.
“Care plans described how people should be supported and were person centred.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could take part in activities, hobbies and outings that interested them. The home also supported contact with family and friends through technology.
“People had opportunities to take part in activities of their choice and were supported and encouraged with their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Improvements after the last inspection
The home had corrected the earlier problems with medicines records, risk assessments and involving night staff in fire drills.
“Improvements had been made at this inspection. This meant the provider had achieved compliance with Regulation 12.” from the report
One care-file audit was incomplete
minorThe provider's audit found that three case files had been checked in one month when four should have been completed. The report says this was identified and action was taken.
“The provider's audit had shown three case file's had been checked one month when four should have been completed.” from the report
- 01How have you kept medicines administration safe since the April 2018 inspection?
- 02How are risk assessments reviewed now, especially for falls, moving and handling, skin integrity, and eating and drinking?
- 03How do you make sure night staff continue to take part in fire drills?
- 04How are care plans reviewed with residents and relatives, and how are changes in people's needs recorded?
- 05How do you check that all required case-file audits are completed on time?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and checking improvements requested after the March 2017 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 June 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 Nightingale Hall
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 January 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.