CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Scarbrough Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, with enough staff and safe recruitment checks. Medicines were generally managed safely, but inspectors recommended better monitoring of medicine room temperatures.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff were trained and supported, and people received support with food, drink and healthcare. The home supported consent and best-interest decisions in line with the law.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had quality checks, action plans and systems for gathering feedback. Inspectors found a positive, open and person-centred culture, although some people raised communication concerns.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed care, with improvements still needed to medicines storage, meals and garden areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 and 25 May 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, training, audits and infection control arrangements.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, safe care, good training, effective infection control and systems to support people's choices and health. Medicines were generally managed safely, but one medicines room was too warm and the home was asked to improve monitoring.
Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit. Their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating. The overall rating stayed Good, and Effective improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough competent staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Recruitment checks were completed before new staff were appointed.
“There were enough suitably competent staff and they were well delegated to provide people with a good standard of care.” from the report
Staff support and training
Staff received induction, regular supervision and training. The home also arranged specialist training when needed.
“Staff were well supported and felt valued.” from the report
Clean and prepared
The home was clean and tidy, and inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were effective.
“The home was clean and tidy.” from the report
Person-centred culture
Inspectors found that people's needs were central to the care provided. The home also supported personalised wishes and activities.
“As a result, personalised care was delivered to everyone, which achieved good outcomes for people.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with health and social care professionals and supported people to access health services.
“All staff worked in partnership with other organisations.” from the report
Medicine storage temperatures
needs fixingOne medicine room was recorded at 25 degrees, so medicines were not always stored at the temperature recommended by the manufacturer. The provider was asked to review its monitoring.
“One medicines room was 25 degrees when we visited.” from the report
Garden areas
minorSome families said the garden areas needed work, including improvements to a sensory area. The provider was asked to make fuller use of and maintain all garden spaces.
“Some families commented the garden areas needed some work including, improving a sensory area.” from the report
Communication
minorA small number of people raised concerns about communication. The manager was aware of this and was working to improve it.
“We received a small number of negative comments regarding communication and how it could be further improved.” from the report
- 01How are medicine room temperatures now monitored and recorded?
- 02What changes have been made to menus and dining arrangements since the inspection?
- 03What work has been done to improve and maintain the garden and sensory area?
- 04How are relatives kept informed, and what has changed to improve communication?
- 05What were the previous Caring and Responsive ratings, since these were not inspected during this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 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 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found gaps in staffing cover and health monitoring, so Effective was rated Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited on 20 and 21 September 2017. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also checked care plans, staff records, medicines, complaints, audits and the building.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, person-centred activities, safe medicines management and a well-maintained environment.
There were important shortfalls. A staff absence left one dementia unit without enough cover when a person fell, although the person was not injured and action was taken. On another occasion, a person's high blood pressure was not referred quickly enough for medical advice. Some care records also lacked important health information.
The home started improving these areas during the inspection. This included reviewing staffing arrangements, recruiting extra staff, updating records and reviewing quality checks. The report does not say that the home was placed in special measures.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff being warm, considerate and respectful. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff being extremely kind, caring warm and considerate towards people and their visiting relatives and towards each other.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines, communication needs and personal histories. Activities were linked to individual interests.
“People's care plans contained person-centered information on their care and support needs.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff giving medicines had their competence checked. Medicine records showed no gaps or unexplained discrepancies.
“Registered nurses and senior care workers who gave people their medicine had their competencies assessed to promote safe practice.” from the report
Positive management
People, relatives, staff and professionals expressed confidence in the management. The home had an open and respectful culture.
“There was a high level of confidence in the registered manager amongst people, their relatives, staff and professionals.” from the report
Comfortable surroundings
The building was purpose-built, well maintained and designed to support mobility, personal care and people living with dementia.
“Overall, the home was furnished to a high standard.” from the report
Staffing cover
seriousA staff absence left the dementia unit short of one care worker. During this period, a person fell and no staff were immediately visible in the area. The person was not injured and staffing arrangements were reviewed.
“There were no staff to be seen in the area.” from the report
Delayed health referral
seriousA person's blood pressure readings suggested that medical advice was needed, but staff did not seek urgent advice promptly. The person's GP was contacted after inspectors raised the issue.
“No urgent advice had been sought from a health care professional.” from the report
Incomplete health records
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain how to monitor diabetes or when to seek urgent help for problems during or after tube feeding. Staff began updating the records.
“There were some omissions within people's records that were not identified through exchange of information meetings, and or quality monitoring processes.” from the report
As-needed medicine instructions
needs fixingSome instructions for as-needed medicines were unclear or missing. These records were updated during the inspection.
“We noted that the procedure for one person's PRN medicine was not clear.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure there are enough staff on the dementia unit during sickness, annual leave, breaks and meetings?
- 02What process is now used to make sure raised blood pressure and other changes in health are referred to health professionals without delay?
- 03Have the care plans for diabetes monitoring and tube feeding been completed, including when urgent help is needed?
- 04How are instructions for as-needed medicines checked so staff know exactly when and how to give them?
- 05What evidence can you show that the improvements identified during this inspection have been completed and are being audited?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, carried out on 20 and 21 September 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 2018 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 Scarbrough Court
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 March 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.