CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rushyfields Residential and Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe recruitment, reviewed risk assessments, effective safeguarding arrangements and safe medicine procedures. Infection prevention and control practices were also good.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported to make choices and decisions, including through best-interest processes where needed. Staff had relevant training, people's food and drink needs were met, and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind, respectful interactions. People were involved in decisions, supported to maintain relationships and helped to develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed. People were supported with communication, activities, complaints and discussions about their end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture, regular reviews, staff support and management audits. The manager understood responsibilities around notifications and being open when things went wrong.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rushyfields Residential and Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was the first inspection since the home registered in 2020. It was unannounced and took place on 30 August 2022. An inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with one person, five relatives and six staff, and reviewed care, medicine, training and management records.
Inspectors rated the home Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough trained staff, safe medicine systems, personalised risk assessments and good infection prevention practices. The environment was clean, safe and adapted to people's needs.
People and relatives gave positive feedback. Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions, support for people's choices and communication needs, and activities that supported people's wellbeing. The home had systems for complaints, care reviews, audits and learning from incidents.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were administered, recorded and stored safely. The manager monitored medicines given when needed and audits were used to check practice.
“Medicines were administered safely and records regarding people's medicines were completed effectively.” from the report
Choice and control
People were supported to make decisions and take part in their care. Staff used communication methods suited to each person's preferences.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that people were treated with dignity and respect. Relatives also gave positive feedback about staff.
“We observed positive interactions and staff treat people with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised activities
People's interests and relationships were included in their support plans. Inspectors saw people taking part in an activity designed to support involvement and wellbeing.
“People followed their interests and took take part in activities that had positive impacts on their lives and their overall well-being.” from the report
Positive leadership
The home had a supportive culture and management systems for reviewing quality and acting on feedback.
“People were supported by a well-managed staff team with positive attitudes.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks and support plans after they move in?
- 02How will you adapt communication and activities to my relative's preferences, including if they live with dementia?
- 03How will you manage and review medicines given when needed, and how will relatives be kept informed?
- 04How will you involve my relative, the family and relevant professionals in decisions about care and end-of-life wishes?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how will the home show that complaints have been followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of the newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 2022 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 March 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home screened visitors, supported social distancing, used protective equipment safely and had enough supplies. They also found the home clean and had regular cleaning of frequently touched areas.
The home supported contact with relatives through video calls, telephone calls and a visiting pod. Staff had completed infection prevention and control and COVID-19 training.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for the service.
Safer visiting
Visitors were screened for COVID-19, and relatives could use a visiting pod without entering the main building.
“The home had a visiting pod which relatives could access without having to enter the main building.” from the report
Protective equipment
The home had enough PPE, stocked PPE stations and hand sanitisers. Staff were observed wearing suitable PPE and had been trained to use it.
“The home had sufficient supplies of PPE. All staff were observed to be wearing appropriate PPE and were trained in its use.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy, with extra cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“The home was clean and tidy. The home had a thorough cleaning schedule in place including additional cleaning of frequently touched areas” from the report
Keeping in touch
The home encouraged video and telephone contact with relatives and used pictorial cards to support communication.
“Video contact and telephone calls with relatives were encouraged wherever possible.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently screen visitors and manage visits to reduce infection risks?
- 02How do you make sure staff continue to use PPE safely and keep their infection control training up to date?
- 03How often are frequently touched areas cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 04How can residents keep in touch with relatives if they cannot have a face-to-face visit?
- 05How do you support residents who have difficulty understanding or communicating with staff?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was inspected but not rated and did not assess all areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 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.
Every inspection of Rushyfields Residential and Nursing Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Rushyfields Residential and Nursing Home →
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Rushyfields Residential and Nursing Home →
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 September 2020.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 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.