CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Pinetum
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. This included safe visiting, use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning, isolation and outbreak procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and safe arrangements for visiting during COVID-19.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 30 April 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found safe arrangements for visitors, including testing, temperature checks, hand sanitising and personal protective equipment. The home also supported visits in rooms, a visiting pod, through windows and in the garden.
The home was clean and hygienic. Staff used protective equipment correctly, people and staff had regular COVID-19 testing, and people were supported to isolate when needed.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Safe visiting
Visitors had to complete several safety checks before entering. Different types of visits were supported, including visits in rooms, a visiting pod, through windows and in the garden.
“Visitors were welcomed, and systems had been set up to facilitate this safely.” from the report
Communication with families
Relatives said they received regular updates about people’s wellbeing and changes to government guidance. Technology was also used to help people keep in touch with family.
“They told us they received regular e-mails and telephone calls from staff to inform them of any changes in their loved one's wellbeing” from the report
Infection control
The environment was clean and hygienic. Staff used protective equipment correctly, and testing, cleaning, isolation and outbreak procedures were in place.
“We were assured this service was following safe infection prevention and control measures to keep people safe.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting arrangements changed since the inspection on 30 April 2021?
- 02How do you now clean the visiting pod and other high-touch areas between visits?
- 03How are people and staff tested for infections, and what happens if someone tests positive or develops symptoms?
- 04How do you support a person to stay in touch with family if face-to-face visits are restricted?
- 05Can you explain how you prevent and manage infection outbreaks now?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 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, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some tired areas and room for better records of people's involvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 and 26 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with 10 people living at the home, three relatives, staff, managers and a visiting professional. They reviewed care records, staff records, training, audits and safety checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, received medicines on time and were happy with the care. Inspectors found enough trained staff, accurate medicines records, detailed care plans and kind relationships.
The home had a positive atmosphere and offered activities suited to different needs. Inspectors noted some tired-looking décor, one lounge with uncomfortable temperatures and that people's involvement in some care reviews was not always clearly recorded. The last inspection was also rated Good.
Safe medicines support
People said medicines arrived on time. Inspectors found the medicines records checked were accurate and that staff were trained and assessed as competent.
“Medication Administration Records [MAR] checked were accurate and easy to follow.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and treated them warmly. Inspectors saw positive relationships and people said their dignity was respected during personal care.
“Staff knew people well and displayed positive, warm and familiar relationships with the people they interacted with.” from the report
Detailed care planning
The care plans reviewed gave staff clear information about people's individual needs, communication and preferences.
“Care plans contained the information necessary for staff to be aware of people's needs and how best to meet these needs.” from the report
Good leadership checks
The home used audits, feedback and incident records to identify problems and make improvements. People and relatives were encouraged to share their views.
“The service had a series of audits and checks in place to help identify any shortfalls in service provision.” from the report
Some décor needed updating
minorMost areas were comfortable and homely, but inspectors said some areas looked tired. The manager knew about this and had plans to upgrade them.
“Some areas looked a bit 'tired' in terms of décor but the manager was aware of this and plans were in place to upgrade.” from the report
One lounge was uncomfortable
minorOne lounge was not used much because it was too cold in winter and too hot in summer. The heating issue had been referred for further maintenance.
“One was not used very much as it was too cold in winter and too hot in the summer.” from the report
Care review records could be clearer
minorPeople were involved in care reviews, but the records did not always clearly show that involvement.
“We saw that reviews of care were undertaken which included people's input and involvement as part of this process (although this could have been better evidenced in some records).” from the report
Activities for larger groups
minorThe home offered individual activities, but inspectors noted difficulties in meeting people's social needs in larger group settings because people's care needs varied widely.
“There were difficulties in meeting people's social care needs in larger group settings.” from the report
- 01What work has been completed to improve the areas that inspectors described as tired?
- 02Is the lounge now comfortable throughout the year, and what maintenance was carried out?
- 03How do you record a person's involvement in care reviews and decisions?
- 04How do you provide social activities for people who cannot take part in larger groups?
- 05Who is now registered as manager with the CQC, and what support is in place for the management team?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 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 Pinetum
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.