CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Sandringham Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and risks were assessed and managed. Medicines were given as prescribed, but some medicines records and processes were incomplete or inaccurate.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive, person-centred leadership, regular audits and systems for involving people and relatives. Some medicine issues had not been found by the audits.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-led care, but some medicines records and processes were not fully reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 16 and 23 March 2023, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good risk management, a clean and safe environment, and suitable infection control. People were protected from abuse and received their medicines as prescribed.
There were some weaknesses in medicines records. Records for thickened fluids, PEG flushes, creams and 'when required' medicines were not always complete or accurate. The home acted straight away after inspectors raised these issues, but the improvements still needed to become part of everyday practice.
The inspection followed concerns linked to an incident after which a person died, as well as concerns about falls and the general standard of care. The inspection did not examine the circumstances of that incident. CQC found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from those concerns. The other three question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Recruitment checks were completed to ensure staff were suitable.
“There were enough staff to safely support people and meet their needs.” from the report
Risk and safeguarding
People were protected from abuse, and staff understood people's needs and risks. Accidents and incidents were reviewed for lessons.
“Risks to people were assessed, monitored and managed.” from the report
Safe environment
The home was clean and well maintained. Health and safety checks, fire drills and infection control arrangements were in place.
“The environment was safe and well maintained. Health and safety checks were up to date and staff completed regular fire drills.” from the report
Leadership and culture
Inspectors found approachable management and a positive culture focused on person-centred care. Relatives described staff as accommodating, knowledgeable and friendly.
“The service was well-led and there was a positive culture within the service.” from the report
Involvement and feedback
People and relatives were regularly asked for their views through meetings, questionnaires and surveys. A resident representative also supported people to give feedback.
“Regular residents' and relatives' meetings took place. The provider also sought feedback using questionnaires and surveys.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome records were not accurate or fully completed. This included records for thickened fluids, PEG flushes, creams and 'when required' medicines.
“Some medicine records were not accurate or fully completed, such as records for people's thickened fluids, recording flushes for 1 person's PEG (percutaneous endoscopic tube) and guidance for people who were prescribed 'when required' medicines.” from the report
Medicines audits
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified some of the medicines problems found by inspectors. The home responded immediately, but the changes still needed to become consistent practice.
“Some medicine issues we identified on inspection had not been identified within the audits.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have been made to records for thickened fluids, PEG care, creams and 'when required' medicines?
- 02How do you now check that medicines records are accurate and fully completed every time?
- 03What evidence can you show that the medicines improvements have become embedded in everyday practice?
- 04How are falls and other incidents reviewed, and how are lessons shared with staff?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous inspection, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 2023 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, March 2020
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a wide range of activities.
Inspectors visited the home without giving notice on 18 February 2020. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and professionals. They also reviewed care plans, medicines records, training information and management records.
The home provided accommodation and personal and nursing care for 91 people, with space for 92. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Medicines, staffing, risk assessments and infection control were managed well.
People received personalised care based on their needs, preferences and life history. They were supported to eat and drink well, attend healthcare appointments, keep relationships and take part in activities at the home and in the community.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 1 August 2017.
Safe medicines management
Inspectors found medicines were administered and recorded correctly. Instructions for medicines given only when needed were clear.
“Medicines were managed safely. People who received 'when required' medicines had clear instructions in place for staff to follow.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were supported by staff who treated them with kindness and respect. They were also supported to maintain relationships, follow their religion and make choices.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect at all times.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life history, likes and dislikes. Staff reviewed care plans and adapted support when people's needs changed.
“People had care plans in place and these were written in a person-centred way that included life history, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Activities and community links
People and relatives gave very positive feedback about the activities. The home offered activities inside and outside the home and supported people to use local services.
“The home had an activities coordinator in place who had activity plans for the week and people were joining in and enjoying what was on offer.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are each person's risk assessments and care plans reviewed when their needs change?
- 02How do you make sure medicines given only when needed are provided according to clear instructions?
- 03What activities are available for someone with my relative's interests, health needs or communication needs?
- 04How will my relative be supported to keep relationships, use local services and maintain independence?
- 05How can relatives contribute to care plan reviews, surveys and discussions about improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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.
Every inspection of Sandringham Care Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 June 2015.
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.