CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Percy House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt very safe. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely and the home was clean, although recruitment records could be strengthened.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had relevant training and support. The home worked with health professionals and supported people's mental and physical wellbeing.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found an exceptionally caring and supportive atmosphere. People were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and supported to become more independent.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was highly personalised and adapted when people's needs changed. People were supported to build social skills, use local facilities, maintain relationships and take part in activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers created a positive and inclusive culture and worked closely with health and social care professionals. Systems were in place to monitor quality and safety and to improve the service.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Percy House rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring and responsive support, with minor recruitment record weaknesses.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 18 December 2019 and 3 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with five people living at the home, staff and managers. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records, and received feedback from seven care professionals.
The home supports up to 18 people with mental health needs. Inspectors found people were safe, received effective support and were treated with exceptional kindness and respect. Staff helped people build confidence, independence and relationships, and supported them to take part in community life.
The overall rating was Outstanding. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Caring and Responsive were rated Outstanding. The home was rated Good overall at the previous inspection in June 2017. Responsive improved from Good to Outstanding, while the other question ratings stayed the same.
Exceptionally caring support
People said they felt valued and part of the provider's family. Care professionals described staff as exceptionally kind, caring and compassionate.
“The managers and staff continued to create an incredibly caring and supportive atmosphere in the home.” from the report
Greater independence
The home helped people rebuild relationships, gain confidence and manage their mental health more independently. Staff supported people to live successful lives in the community.
“The service was exemplary at helping people achieve positive outcomes, building confidence and independence to better manage their mental health.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and adapted support to their individual needs, feelings and communication styles. Care plans were detailed and people were involved in planning their care.
“People received an exceptionally personalised service that supported their very individual needs.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to use local shops and cafes, go out independently and take part in trips, football, snooker and computer classes.
“The service had been remarkable in supporting people to regain social skills and get them engaged in a range of activities.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked closely with health and social care professionals. Professionals said communication was very good and that staff acted quickly when people's mental health changed.
“The managers are fantastic at keeping me in the loop and bringing things to my attention” from the report
Recruitment records
minorRecruitment processes were generally safe, but the home did not always record interviews and verbal references. This was a minor weakness identified by inspectors.
“These could be strengthened by recording interviews and any verbal references.” from the report
Limited physical accessibility
needs fixingThe home was not designed for people with physical disabilities and had no passenger lift or assisted bathing. People with mobility needs were placed in ground-floor rooms with wet rooms.
“The home did not provide a passenger lift or assisted bathing.” from the report
- 01How would you meet my relative's needs if they developed mobility problems or needed assisted bathing?
- 02How do you make sure interviews and verbal references are recorded for new staff?
- 03How would my relative be involved in writing and reviewing their care plan?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be suitable for my relative?
- 05How would you notice and respond if my relative's mental health began to change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the separate outreach support service at the same premises was not regulated by CQC. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 2020 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 2017
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found highly personal support but identified some safety records that needed attention.
Inspectors visited on 9 May 2017 with 48 hours' notice. They spoke with six people, four health and social care professionals, managers and staff. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, incident records and management audits.
The home supported 18 people with mental health needs. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable care planning and good support with food, health appointments and activities. People were treated with dignity and involved in decisions about their care.
The strongest area was caring, rated Outstanding. Inspectors saw warm and trusting relationships, with staff showing genuine interest in people as individuals. The other four areas were rated Good.
Some safety assessments were missing at the start of the inspection, including checks for legionella and asbestos. These were arranged immediately and later confirmed as completed. Some as-required medicines did not yet have clear instructions in care plans. The overall rating remained Good.
Kind, personal care
Staff built very positive relationships with people and showed empathy, respect and genuine interest in their lives.
“We observed excellent relationships between people and staff.” from the report
People have a say
People took part in care reviews and monthly residents' meetings. They could comment on their care and influence activities and changes at the home.
“Staff made every effort to support people to be involved in determining their care.” from the report
Good activities and choice
People could choose how to spend their time, what to eat and drink, and how to furnish their rooms. The home offered regular activities and trips.
“The service also regularly ran trips out two or three times a week and did not charge people living at the home any additional costs for these events.” from the report
Responsive management
People and professionals said managers were approachable and acted quickly when concerns were raised. The home also worked closely with other services.
“Professionals we spoke with told us the management of the home was extremely responsive, proactive and forward thinking.” from the report
Safety assessments were initially missing
needs fixingAt the inspection, the home did not have full formal assessments for legionella or asbestos. Managers arranged these immediately, and later confirmed both had been completed.
“We noted no formal assessments had been undertaken for legionella or asbestos at the home.” from the report
Fire risk assessment format
needs fixingThe home had room-by-room fire risk assessments but no overarching fire risk assessment document. Managers said they would take further advice and update it.
“The service did not have an overarching fire risk assessment document but had conducted individual risk assessments for each room in the building.” from the report
Some as-required medicine instructions were incomplete
needs fixingNot all as-required medicines had a care plan explaining when and how they should be given. The manager said this would be addressed.
“We noted not all 'as required' medicines had a care plan detailing when and how they should be administered.” from the report
A small amount of refresher training was outstanding
minorMost mandatory training was up to date, but a small number of staff still needed refresher training.
“We saw the majority of mandatory training was up to date, with only a small number of staff still in need of refresher training.” from the report
- 01Have all as-required medicines now got clear care plan instructions explaining when and how they should be given?
- 02When were the legionella assessment and asbestos survey completed, and how are they kept under review?
- 03Has the overarching fire risk assessment been updated since this inspection?
- 04Are all staff now up to date with mandatory refresher training?
- 05Is there currently a vacancy, given that the home was described as being at full capacity?
This announced inspection covered all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home; the outreach service from the same premises was not regulated by CQC. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 2017 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 Percy House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- February 2020Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
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.