CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Northlands Care Home (Northumberland)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2024
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious shortfalls in safety, care, staffing and management.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 4, 5 and 11 December 2023. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed records and checked how care was provided. They also spoke with local safeguarding and commissioning teams.
People were not always protected from avoidable harm. Risk assessments and care records were incomplete, action after falls and incidents was limited, and the home was subject to organisational safeguarding concerns. There were also shortfalls in staffing arrangements, medicines records, nutrition and hydration, staff training, and legal checks when people could not consent to care.
The home was rated Inadequate overall, and Inadequate for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this focused visit, so their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. The home was placed in special measures and CQC said it would request an action plan and monitor progress.
People felt well cared for
People and relatives described staff as friendly and approachable. People said they were involved in discussions about their care.
“People told us they were happy with the care they received and found the staff pleasant and approachable.” from the report
Visitors were welcomed
Relatives could visit at most times and stay as long as they wished. People were supported to keep in contact with family and friends.
“Relatives told us they could visit the home at most times and were welcomed by the staff.” from the report
Some safety checks worked
Checks of equipment, electrical systems and hoists were carried out in a timely way.
“Checks on equipment used at the home were in place and checks of electrical systems, hoists and other services at the home were carried out in a timely manner.” from the report
Improvement work had started
A new quality manager had identified areas needing improvement and was working on changes. The local safeguarding team said the provider was responding to its concerns.
“They had quickly identified areas that needed improvement and were progressing changes to bring about quality improvements.” from the report
People were at risk of avoidable harm
seriousRisk assessments and care plans did not always describe people's actual risks, including falls, choking and skin damage. The home was also subject to organisational safeguarding because of multiple concerns about care and safety.
“People were not always protected from risk and actions to mitigate risks were not always in place.” from the report
Nutrition and fluids were not reliably managed
seriousFluid records repeatedly showed that people were not drinking enough. Care plans did not always reflect professional advice, including for choking risks and feeding through a tube.
“Fluid charts maintained at the home consistently showed people were not drinking enough fluid to maintain their wellbeing.” from the report
Staffing and training needed improvement
seriousThe provider did not use the dependency tool required by its own policy, and some areas were not continuously staffed. Training gaps remained, and the provider had not always checked agency staff had the right skills.
“The provider did not always make sure staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and support.” from the report
Quality monitoring failed to find problems
seriousAudits were often tick-box checks and failed to identify risks, incomplete records, poor fluid monitoring and other shortfalls. This meant the provider did not consistently learn or improve after incidents.
“Audits and checks undertaken at the home were functional and frequently tick box, with little or no actions identified to improve the quality of care.” from the report
- 01What has been changed so every person's risk assessment reflects current falls, choking, skin damage and other risks?
- 02How are you now checking that people receive enough fluids and that feeding-tube instructions are complete and followed?
- 03How do you record capacity assessments and best-interests decisions for bed rails, lap belts and other restrictions?
- 04How do you decide staffing numbers and ensure the lower ground floor is safely observed at all times?
- 05What evidence can you show that the breaches, safeguarding concerns and duty of candour failures have been addressed?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 June 2024 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
Northlands Care Home (Northumberland) was rated Good overall, but inspectors found that management and staff morale needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe care, kind treatment, suitable meals and personalised care. The home had also improved its staffing since the previous inspection.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home was changing managers, several staff raised concerns affecting morale, and some people said communication could be better. Medicines records and some risk assessments also needed improvement, although inspectors found no impact on people from the medicines recording problems.
Improved staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. This addressed the staffing problem identified at the previous inspection.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and their dignity and independence were promoted. Staff knew people's preferences and responded with understanding.
“People were treated with kindness and their dignity and independence was promoted.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff guidance on how to meet people's individual needs. People were involved in their care.
“People had a care plan which guided staff on how to deliver person-centred care.” from the report
Activities and social support
The home provided activities including music, exercise, arts and crafts, pampering sessions and trips into the community.
“Musical events, exercise sessions, arts and crafts and pampering sessions were organised.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingMedicines were managed safely, but inspectors found shortfalls in records and processes. The provider was addressing these and inspectors found no impact on people.
“We noted some shortfalls with medicines records and processes, but did not find these had any impact upon people.” from the report
Risk assessments
needs fixingRisks were assessed and monitored, but some assessments did not contain enough detail.
“Risks were assessed and monitored, however some risk assessments required more detail.” from the report
Staff morale and culture
needs fixingSeveral staff raised concerns about working at the home that affected morale. Inspectors recommended that the provider kept the day-to-day culture under review.
“During our inspection, several staff raised concerns about certain aspects of working at the home which affected staff morale.” from the report
Communication
minorSome people and relatives said communication could be improved.
“Several individuals told us that communication could be improved” from the report
- 01What action has the new manager taken to improve staff morale and the day-to-day culture?
- 02How are medicines records and processes checked now, and what changes were made after the inspection?
- 03Have the risk assessments been updated with the extra detail inspectors requested?
- 04How has communication with people and relatives been improved?
- 05Are activities now available throughout the week, including at weekends?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and it found that the previous staffing breach had been resolved. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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 Northlands Care Home (Northumberland)
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- June 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Northlands Care Home (Northumberland) →
- September 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Northlands Care Home (Northumberland) →
- August 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 2017.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.