CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Scorton Care Village
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe. This included visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, with a small area identified for further development.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 October 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, and covered one unit of the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and infection outbreaks safely. Staff also knew how to recognise early signs that someone's health was deteriorating.
The home had learned from an earlier outbreak and offered staff support sessions. Inspectors signposted the provider to resources about staff travelling safely together.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most care areas.
Visitor safety
Visitors were supervised, screened and supported to follow social distancing and infection control arrangements. People could use video calls to keep in touch with families.
“Staff supervised all essential visitors to ensure social distancing and infection control guidelines were followed.” from the report
PPE arrangements
PPE was stored safely in designated stations, including portable stations that could be used if an outbreak occurred.
“Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was safely stored in designated stations throughout the service.” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning schedules continued through the night, so areas were cleaned regularly to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“The schedules through the day were continued at night to ensure all areas were regularly cleaned to reduce the risk of transmission.” from the report
Learning and staff support
The home reviewed an earlier outbreak to identify lessons and offered staff sessions to discuss the pressures of the pandemic.
“The provider and registered manager had recognised the challenges staff had overcome during the pandemic and had introduced specific support sessions staff could use to de-brief and offload their feelings.” from the report
Staff travel arrangements
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to improve how staff travelled together safely during the pandemic. The report does not say that this led to a breach.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach to support staff to travel safely together during the pandemic.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to help staff travel safely together since the inspection?
- 02How are visitors currently screened and supervised when they come to the home?
- 03How often are cleaning schedules completed during the day and night?
- 04How would you manage an infection outbreak in this unit and across the rest of the home?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for caring, effective care, responsiveness and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, covering one particular unit; it was not a full rated inspection of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 November 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, November 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always safe and rated Safe Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited on 30 September and 10 October 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspections. It was no longer in breach of regulations. People were treated with kindness and respect, and staff provided personalised care. People had access to activities, the community and a secure garden.
Safe care was still rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps in medicines monitoring, care plan instructions and staffing on one nursing unit during the first day. These issues were addressed or being worked on, but the rating means some aspects of safety were not always reliable.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and dignity. Staff built positive relationships and supported people to remain as independent as possible.
“People were treated with respect and dignity, they were also supported to maintain their independence.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and communication needs. Care was adapted to individual preferences, including for people living with dementia or sensory impairments.
“Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Improved management
The provider and managers had made clear improvements since the earlier inspections. New checks, training and an action plan were in place.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Medicines checks
needs fixingMedicines were generally managed safely, but storage temperatures outside the clinic room were not always monitored. Some people also lacked person-centred instructions for medicines taken only when needed.
“Some inconsistencies were found such as the temperature of medicines stored outside the clinic room were not monitored.” from the report
Care plan instructions
needs fixingElectronic care plans identified risks but did not always explain what staff should do to reduce them. Consent and mental capacity records were also not consistently up to date.
“New electronic care plans highlighted the areas of risk but did not always describe the action to be taken to reduce the likelihood of harm.” from the report
Staffing on the nursing unit
seriousOn the first inspection day there were not always enough staff on the nursing unit to provide care safely and on time. The provider reviewed the system and said the issue was corrected on the second day.
“On day one there were not always enough staff on shift on the nursing unit to enable people to receive care in a timely and safe way.” from the report
Fire evacuation practice
needs fixingStaff received fire safety training but did not take part in frequent evacuation practices. Managers added this to the training plan.
“Staff routinely carried out fire safety training, however they did not take part in frequent evacuation practices.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that staffing levels are sufficient on the nursing unit at every shift?
- 02How are medicines stored outside the clinic room, and how are their temperatures recorded?
- 03How do you make sure each person's 'as and when required' medicines have a personalised protocol?
- 04How have care plans been updated so they clearly explain the action staff must take when someone is at risk?
- 05How often are fire evacuation practices carried out now?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, following earlier Requires Improvement ratings and a previous breach of Regulation 17. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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 Scorton Care Village
3 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 December 2017.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.