CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Otterburn
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, visiting, testing, protective equipment, outbreak management and COVID-19 vaccination requirements. The provider said it had measures to reduce the risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Otterburn was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 January 2022. The inspection focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 were affecting care.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing possible outbreaks and helping prevent infections. They were also assured that people could receive visitors in line with current guidance.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. Safe was also marked inspected but not rated. This report does not give ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including safe use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Inspectors were assured that visiting was being facilitated in line with the guidance in force at the time.
“We were assured the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
Activities during restrictions
The home had adapted activities so people could still take part during COVID-19 restrictions.
“Arrangements for activities had been reviewed to allow people to participate despite COVID-19 restrictions” from the report
Staff support
Staff could access wellbeing information and information about other support through an interactive app.
“Guidance and information was available to staff via an interactive bespoke app which offered information around wellbeing and alternative support available to staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing staffing pressures now, and what effect do they have on people's care?
- 02What infection control, testing and protective equipment arrangements are currently in place?
- 03How can families visit, and have the visiting arrangements changed since the inspection?
- 04How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirements or have an exemption?
- 05What activities are available now for people, including those who cannot join group activities?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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, April 2019
Otterburn rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since earlier inspections.
Inspectors visited on 28 and 29 March 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, incident records and quality checks.
They found people were safe, medicines were managed properly and there were enough staff. Staff had the training and skills needed for people with complex health needs. People were treated with dignity, involved in decisions and supported to access healthcare, activities and personalised care.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the legal requirements were met and that people’s outcomes were consistently good.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the comprehensive inspection in November 2017. A focused inspection in June 2018 checked progress on legal requirements, and this inspection found that improvements had been made.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff also used personalised approaches for people who needed extra support.
“Medicines systems were organised and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Skilled staff
Training had improved since the previous inspection. Staff understood people’s complex needs and were supported through induction, supervision and competency checks.
“We saw how this benefitted people as staff had the skills and knowledge to perform their roles and responsibilities effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff and relatives gave positive feedback. Staff respected privacy, dignity, rights and independence.
“People were treated with compassion by a caring and respectful staff team.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s likes, dislikes, preferences and ways of communicating. People and relatives were involved in reviews and decisions.
“Care planning is individually tailored for the people we care for, based on their preferences or information gathered from people close to the person if they are unable to verbalise their preferences or wishes.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found quality checks and action plans were used to improve the service. People, relatives and staff said they could share their views.
“Effective systems were in place to assess and improve quality and safety in the service.” from the report
Care record organisation
minorOne person’s care documentation needed better organisation so discrepancies could be corrected. Managers said they would address this, and the records had been audited with actions identified.
“One person's care documentation was required some organisation to ensure any discrepancies were corrected.” from the report
- 01How would you meet my relative’s particular health, nursing, dementia, mental health or communication needs?
- 02How do you keep care records accurate and make sure any discrepancies are corrected quickly?
- 03What training and competency checks would staff supporting my relative have?
- 04How would my relative be involved in care planning and reviews if they could not communicate verbally?
- 05What activities and daily choices would be available to suit my relative’s interests and preferences?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 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 Otterburn
7 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.