CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Pinetree Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, PPE use and support for visiting.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 11 March 2021. It looked at how well the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors found systems to reduce the spread of infection. There was enough PPE, staff had training in using it, and people and staff were tested regularly. A COVID-19 vaccination programme was also in place.
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw positive interactions, and the home had started indoor visits after previously offering window visits, pod visits and video calls.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall rating or a rated score for Safe. It was a focused inspection, not a full review of all aspects of care.
Infection control
The home had systems to help prevent infections spreading among people, staff and visitors.
“Systems were in place to help prevent people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
PPE and staff checks
There was enough PPE, staff had been trained to use it, and managers were checking whether guidance was followed.
“There was enough PPE such as aprons, gloves and masks, which staff were seen to use.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People and staff were tested regularly, and a COVID-19 vaccination programme was in place.
“Staff and people were tested regularly for COVID-19. A COVID-19 vaccination programme was in place.” from the report
Support and visiting
People spoke positively about staff, and inspectors saw positive interactions. The home had begun indoor visits while continuing to adapt its visiting arrangements.
“We observed positive interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are staff spot checks on PPE use carried out now, and what happens if problems are found?
- 02What are the current arrangements for indoor visits?
- 03How are people and staff currently tested for COVID-19?
- 04What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
- 05Has the home had a full inspection covering areas other than infection prevention and control?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 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, September 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found increased safety risks and rated the safe question Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 19 August 2019. Inspectors reviewed five care records and other records, spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and observed care.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable, and people were supported with activities, healthcare and community access.
The safe question was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that some medical risks were not recorded, guidance for some medicines was missing, and one new staff member worked before the appropriate background check was completed. The registered manager acted on these issues during or after the inspection, but some new systems had not been in place long enough to show whether they worked.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors saw staff taking time with people, explaining support and responding when people were distressed.
“People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors observed that staffing levels were sufficient to respond to people promptly, and staffing was reviewed against people's needs.
“During the inspection we observed enough staff were available to respond to people promptly.” from the report
Activities and community links
People took part in games, music, reminiscence, outings and a local choir. The home also took part in an intergenerational football reminiscence project.
“People told us they took part in a range of activities.” from the report
Access to healthcare
Records showed that people were supported to see relevant healthcare professionals when needed. Healthcare professionals also praised the home's person-centred care and end of life support.
“Records showed people had access to healthcare professionals including doctors, dentists and opticians when needed to maintain their health and wellbeing.” from the report
Medical risks not always recorded
seriousInspectors found that risks linked to medical conditions were not always identified or reduced. This meant staff did not always have guidance to keep people safe.
“Risks associated with people's medical conditions had not always been identified and mitigated.” from the report
Incomplete medicine records
seriousGuidance for some medicines given when needed was missing. Records for some patches were not always completed, and one patch was reported as being placed on the same site.
“Certain medicines required a body map for staff to record the position of a patch on the person's body. We found this was not always in place” from the report
Staff checks
seriousOne staff member was allowed to work under supervision before an Adults First Disclosure and Barring Service check had been completed. The provider changed its process after the inspection.
“We found on one occasion a staff member had been allowed to work supervised without an Adults First Disclosure and Barring Service check.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's quality assurance systems did not identify all the issues found during the inspection, including medicines-recording problems.
“The provider had a range of quality assurance systems to monitor the service. We noted these did not always identify the issues we found during the inspection.” from the report
Some care information was incomplete
needs fixingStaff knew people well, but this knowledge was not always written in care records. Some care plans for conditions such as catheter care and diabetes had not initially been created.
“Care plans for associated conditions and care needs had not always been created.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to identify and record risks linked to medical conditions, including risks from warfarin?
- 02How do you now record the application and position of creams and medicine patches, and check that staff follow this process?
- 03Can you confirm that all required Disclosure and Barring Service checks are completed before new staff work with residents?
- 04How do you make sure care plans include all relevant conditions, such as catheter care and diabetes?
- 05What has changed to give people more meal choice and provide suitable visual menus for people living with dementia?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; Safe deteriorated from Good to Requires Improvement and Responsive fell from Outstanding to Good since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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 Pinetree Lodge
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 May 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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Gateshead
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 £1,240 a week. 42 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.