CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Philip Cussins House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found infection controls were mostly in place, but some PPE, hygiene and policy checks needed improvement.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 September 2021. It checked infection prevention and control because of the CQC's response to COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors were assured about visiting arrangements, testing, safe admissions, social distancing, shielding and managing infection outbreaks. They were also assured that visitors were protected from catching and spreading infections.
They were only somewhat assured about the use of PPE, hygiene practices and the infection control policy. Inspectors saw isolated poor PPE practice and found that some checks and arrangements needed strengthening. The manager took immediate action, including improving audits, reviewing the policy and appointing an infection prevention and control champion.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a rated result for all five areas of care.
Visitors and infection spread
Inspectors were assured that the home was taking steps to prevent visitors from catching or spreading infections.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Testing and safe admissions
Inspectors were assured that people were admitted safely and that testing was available for residents and staff.
“We were assured that the provider was accessing testing for people using the service and staff.” from the report
Visits continued safely
The home was facilitating visits in line with the guidance in place at the time of inspection.
“We were assured the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
PPE practice
needs fixingInspectors saw isolated examples of PPE not being used properly. The manager took immediate action to improve PPE audits.
“They had acted on recent advice from infection prevention and control specialists but we still observed isolated instances of poor PPE practice.” from the report
Hygiene checks
needs fixingInspectors were not fully assured about hygiene practices and the layout of the premises. The manager acted immediately to improve auditing.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
Infection control policy
needs fixingThe policy was not fully up to date, and support arrangements needed review. The manager reviewed the auditing and delegated support arrangements.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after inspectors saw isolated poor PPE practice?
- 02How often are PPE and infection prevention and control audits now completed, and can we see the results?
- 03What changes were made to hygiene practices and the layout of the premises?
- 04Has the infection prevention and control policy been fully updated?
- 05What does the infection prevention and control champion do, and who provides support for this work?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 October 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, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a small area for improvement around explaining meal choices.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 27 July 2018. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, observed care and mealtimes, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was calm, welcoming and clean. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and good checks on risks. People received personalised care, had choices in daily life and were supported with activities, community links and religious practices.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors noted that people generally enjoyed meals, but menus were not easily available and staff did not always explain the meal being served.
Safe medicines
Inspectors saw staff check medicines carefully and found accurate records with no missing signatures.
“Medicines records were accurate and supported the safe administration of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring and supportive. Inspectors observed warm, respectful interactions and support that was adapted to individual needs.
“People were supported by staff who were warm, kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's preferences, routines and interests. Staff knew the people they supported well.
“People's care records were up-to-date and personal to the individual.” from the report
Activities and community life
People could choose from regular activities, outings and visits involving the local community.
“Activities took place each day and they were planned according to the interests of people.” from the report
Good staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff and an ongoing training programme. Recruitment checks were thorough.
“There were enough staff available to provide individual care and support to each person.” from the report
Meal choices were not always clear
minorMenus were not available on tables or in an easy-to-find place. Staff did not always explain the meal when serving it, so the home was asked to improve this.
“Menus were not available on tables or in an accessible location, except outside the kitchen, that advertised and kept people informed of the daily food choices.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure people can see the daily meal choices?
- 02How do staff support someone who forgets what meal they ordered or changes their mind?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient for individual care and support?
- 04How are people's religious, cultural and dietary needs recorded and followed?
- 05How are people's activities and trips matched to their interests and changing abilities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the report says the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 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 Philip Cussins House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.
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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
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 £1,160 a week. 30 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.