CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Queensbridge Respite
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Medicines, risks, staffing, recruitment and infection control were found to be managed safely. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and the home had detailed epilepsy risk plans and emergency medicine protocols.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- Staff were exceptionally well trained and people's needs were assessed in detail with families and other professionals. The home supported independence, communication, health, nutrition and successful transitions to other services.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, compassionate and respectful. People were involved in decisions, their communication methods were used, and their privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and activities were matched to people's interests and relationships. One care plan was not up to date after significant changes, and some plans needed fuller descriptions of how to meet people's needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, strong teamwork and a new quality assurance framework. Managers used audits, feedback and reflection to identify and make improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good, with Outstanding effective care; inspectors found highly skilled support and strong improvements since the last inspection, with some care records needing updating.
This was an unannounced inspection over 16 and 21 January 2020. One inspector spent time with six people, spoke with family members and staff, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home provides short breaks for up to six adults with learning or physical disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness, involved in decisions and supported to build independence. Staff worked closely with families, health professionals and other services.
The overall rating was Good. Effective care was rated Outstanding because people's outcomes were consistently better than expected compared with similar services. Safe and well-led care had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Building independence
Staff helped people learn new skills, take part in everyday tasks and grow in confidence. Achievements were recognised, including moves to supported living or residential college.
“Staff were committed to supporting people to develop their independence, learn new skills and grow in confidence.” from the report
Highly skilled staff
Training included people's individual needs, communication methods, autism and sensory needs. Staff were also carefully matched to people's interests where possible.
“Staff were exceptionally well trained and supported by a management team committed to making sure people were supported by highly skilled staff who could meet their needs.” from the report
Strong partnership working
The home worked closely with families, health professionals, day services and other providers. This helped keep support consistent and supported successful transitions.
“Staff worked in partnership with others to provide high quality, effective and consistent support.” from the report
Accessible environment
The home had accessible bedrooms and bathrooms, a quiet area, sensory equipment, a sensory room and an enclosed garden.
“Queensbridge Respite was fully accessible for people with a range of mobility and sensory needs.” from the report
Respectful involvement
People and families were involved in care planning and reviews. Staff used people's preferred communication methods and respected their choices, including when people said no.
“People were active partners in their care and supported to make decisions wherever possible.” from the report
Some care plans needed updating
needs fixingOne care plan had not been updated after significant changes in circumstances. Inspectors also said some plans needed more detail about how best to meet people's needs, although they found no evidence of an impact on people.
“Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and preferences, although one had not been updated following significant changes in circumstances.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure care plans are updated promptly when a person's circumstances change?
- 02How are medicines checked in and out before and after each short break, and how are staff competency checks recorded?
- 03What epilepsy alerting systems and emergency medicine procedures would be used for my relative?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in the transition plan, care plan reviews and evaluation after each stay?
- 05How will staff skills and interests be matched to my relative's communication needs, activities and preferences?
This inspection looked at all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided, and checked whether the provider met the relevant legal requirements. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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, February 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines, risk management and service oversight were not consistently safe.
This was an unannounced inspection after safeguarding and other incidents raised concerns about risk, staffing and moving and handling. Inspectors visited on three dates, spoke with relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home offered short breaks for up to six adults with learning or physical disabilities. Relatives were very positive about the care. They said staff were friendly, people enjoyed their stays, and their needs and routines were respected.
There were important safety problems. Some medicines were not given as prescribed, medicines records were not always accurate, and staff did not always follow risk plans. Checks and reviews did not reliably identify these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive care were rated Good. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The rating had fallen from Good at the previous inspection, published in November 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
Relatives were very positive about how staff treated people. Inspectors saw people relaxed and comfortable in staff's company.
“The staff are all lovely. All of them. Can't fault them.” from the report
Personalised care
Care was based on people's likes, dislikes, communication needs and preferred routines. Families were closely involved in planning support.
“People and relatives were fully involved in planning how staff would provide care.” from the report
Activities and routines
People could take part in activities and trips that matched their interests. Staff also supported regular day services and events.
“A range of activities were on offer for people to take part in.” from the report
Trained staff and enough staffing
Inspectors found enough staff for the people staying at the home. Recruitment checks, training and competency checks were in place.
“There were enough staff. Staff planned the rota based on who was staying at the service to make sure there were enough staff to safely care for each person.” from the report
Positive family feedback
Relatives said people enjoyed their stays and that they could relax while their family member was being cared for.
“Relatives told us they felt they could relax when people were at Queensbridge Respite as they knew they were being well cared for.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome medicines were missing or out of date, and people did not always receive medicines as prescribed. Inspectors also found an insulin dose that did not match medical guidance and inaccurate records.
“People had not always received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Risk plans were not always followed
seriousStaff did not always follow instructions intended to reduce risks. One moving and handling failure put a person at additional risk, and changed risks were not always reassessed.
“On one occasion staff had not followed one person's moving and handling plan which put the person at additional risk.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousAudits and management checks did not identify all the shortfalls found by inspectors. Accident and incident records were not always analysed to improve care.
“The provider's quality monitoring system was ineffective.” from the report
Inconsistent leadership
needs fixingThere had been changes in management, and staff gave mixed views about how well the service was run. Some records were incomplete, unavailable or out of date.
“Leadership had not been consistent.” from the report
Some care records needed updating
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain new information when people's needs changed. The provider arranged for all care plans to be reviewed after inspectors raised this.
“Following our feedback, the provider arranged for all care plans to be reviewed.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure every medicine is available, in date, given as prescribed and recorded accurately?
- 02How do you now check that staff follow each person's moving and handling and other risk plans?
- 03How are changes in a person's needs identified and added promptly to their care plan?
- 04How do you review accidents and incidents, and how can I see what improvements followed?
- 05Who is currently responsible for day-to-day management, and how do you check that quality audits identify problems?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, after incidents raised concerns about risk, staffing and moving and handling. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 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 Queensbridge Respite
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 July 2016.
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
30 live-in carers within about an hour of North Tyneside
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 £1,130 a week. 26 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.