CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Normanby House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed through cleaning, protective equipment, testing, vaccination checks, screening and updated infection control procedures.
- 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and support for safe visiting during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
The inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, keeping the premises clean and supporting visits. They also found that required COVID-19 vaccination checks were being met.
The home was not given an overall quality rating or a rating for the five areas of care. Safe was recorded as inspected but not rated. This means the visit checked specific areas rather than providing a full assessment of the home.
Infection control
The home had cleaning systems and processes intended to reduce the spread of infection.
“Systems were in place and processes followed to help prevent people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was enough protective equipment, including aprons, gloves and masks.
“There was enough PPE such as aprons, gloves and masks.” from the report
Testing and vaccination checks
People and staff were tested regularly, and records were kept to show staff vaccinations.
“Staff and people were tested regularly for COVID-19.” from the report
Keeping families in touch
People and relatives were supported to maintain contact using different types of technology, alongside visiting arrangements.
“People and their relatives were supported to keep in contact using a range of technology.” from the report
Support during the pandemic
Inspectors found that staff worked together to support people's wellbeing and used individual risk assessments for activities outside the home.
“Staff had worked well as a team to help promote people's wellbeing throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 now?
- 02How often are residents and staff tested for COVID-19, and how are the results recorded?
- 03What are the current arrangements for family visits?
- 04How do you keep the cleaning schedule up to date and check that it is completed?
- 05How do you assess and manage risks when residents go shopping, use the minibus or spend time outdoors?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but some records and provider checks needed strengthening.
This was an unannounced inspection on 06 August 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as feeling safe and well cared for. Staff knew people well, supported their independence and involved them in decisions.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and good support with health, food, activities and relationships. End of life care was described as compassionate and kind.
There were some areas to improve. Care plans did not always link risks and actions clearly. Complaint records were not always thorough, and the provider's checks of quality and safety needed to be more robust.
Kind, familiar care
People and relatives said staff knew them well and created a warm, family atmosphere. Staff gathered information about people's lives to build good relationships.
“People felt well cared for by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were received, stored, given and returned safely. Inspectors also found enough staff to provide care promptly and support people's activities.
“Medicines were safely received, stored, administered and returned to the pharmacy when they were no longer required.” from the report
Good staff training
Staff had induction, training and regular support. Inspectors found them competent and knowledgeable in their roles.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled; and carried out their roles effectively.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to make choices, remain independent, develop friendships and take part in outings and activities if they wished.
“People were empowered to make choices and have as much control and independence as possible” from the report
Compassionate end of life support
Staff worked with health professionals to provide dignified care and support for relatives as well as the person.
“Staff understand that end of life has a massive impact on relatives as well as the person they are supporting.” from the report
Risk information was not always clearly linked
needs fixingCare plans and risk assessments did not always explain clearly how staff should respond, particularly when people became anxious. The registered manager agreed to improve the care plan system.
“Care plans and risk assessments did not link together to clearly describe how staff should do this to ensure consistency.” from the report
Provider oversight needed strengthening
needs fixingThe provider needed more robust checks on safety and quality, formal supervision of the registered manager and better checks that systems followed current guidance and law.
“We discussed with the provider the need for a more robust governance of the service from them.” from the report
Complaint records were incomplete
needs fixingPeople and relatives knew how to complain and felt they would be heard, but the records of complaints were not always detailed enough.
“Records relating to complaints were not always thorough.” from the report
Some checks and accessible information were still being developed
minorThe home had not yet assessed how to make the environment easier for people living with dementia. Information in different formats and some care plan recording improvements were also still being developed.
“The environment had not been assessed to understand what changes could be made to make it easier for people living with dementia” from the report
- 01How have you improved the links between risk assessments and care plans, especially for falls, hydration and anxiety?
- 02What checks does the provider now carry out to monitor safety and quality?
- 03How are complaints recorded, investigated and used to make improvements?
- 04Have you completed an assessment of the environment for people living with dementia, and what changes followed?
- 05How do you check that evacuation is possible with minimum staffing levels?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions after the registration of a new provider; the home and the care provided were both looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 September 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 Normanby House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 August 2018.
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.