CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Scottlyn
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found sufficient staff, safe recruitment, suitable safeguarding arrangements and appropriate medicines systems. They were also assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing and visiting arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found regular audits, recorded supervision and better oversight of quality and safety. Staff understood their roles, and relatives and professionals described communication and partnership working positively.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Scottlyn was rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and improvements in management systems.
This was a focused inspection on 17 September 2020. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe and Well-led, including infection control during the coronavirus pandemic. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care, risk, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable safeguarding systems and effective infection control measures. Relatives said the home was clean and that visits and contact had been managed safely.
The previous inspection had rated the home Requires Improvement because its monitoring systems and emergency planning were not strong enough. Inspectors found that these areas had improved and said the home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
The overall rating improved to Good. However, this visit did not reassess all five areas of care. The ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to reduce infection risks and manage possible outbreaks. Relatives also said the home was clean and visits were handled safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had introduced regular audits and improved its quality monitoring. This addressed the governance concerns found at the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we saw the provider had undertaken regular audits to ensure they had an oversight and were monitoring the quality of the service.” from the report
Person-centred support
Inspectors found that support promoted choice, independence and inclusion. Staff focused on helping people develop skills and achieve better outcomes.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Communication with families
Relatives said they could raise concerns and stay in contact through visits, phone calls and video chats. The home also worked with health and social care professionals.
“There is good communication between myself, the manager and staff and I can raise any concerns.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you continue to check that emergency plans and fire procedures remain up to date?
- 02What regular audits do you now complete, and how do you act on any problems they identify?
- 03How will you support my relative to develop skills, make choices and become more independent?
- 04How are family visits, phone calls and video chats arranged if infection risks change?
- 05How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient to meet each person's needs and management duties?
This was an announced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 October 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 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety and management oversight were not always strong.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 December 2019. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records and records about safety and management.
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were caring, respectful and supported people to make choices and become more independent. Care was personalised, medicines were managed safely, and people's health, food and communication needs were supported.
The main problems were with management checks and safety planning. Fire drills had not been completed, and the provider had not properly checked the effect of staff shortages on the registered manager's ability to do management work. The provider was in breach of Regulation 17, Good Governance.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led had fallen from Good at the previous inspection in 2017 to Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and protected their privacy and dignity. Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that staff knew people's needs and preferences.
“Staff upheld the privacy and dignity of people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and involvement. Staff encouraged people to be independent and supported some people to access the community independently.
“People received personalised care which was specific to their needs.” from the report
Good health and daily support
Staff supported people with food, drink and healthcare. Staff had training for specific needs, including epilepsy and diabetes.
“People received annual health checks with their local GP surgery and had 'hospital passports'.” from the report
Safe medicines and clean home
Medicines records showed people received medicines as prescribed. Inspectors also found the home clean and without unpleasant smells.
“Medicines were managed safely. Medicines records were completed and showed people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Fire safety had not been fully tested
seriousA fire drill required by the fire service had not been completed. This meant the home had not tested whether people could be evacuated safely within the required time.
“There was no evidence the required actions had been undertaken.” from the report
Manager covering staff shortages
needs fixingThere were enough staff to meet people's needs, but the registered manager was covering staffing gaps. The provider had not assessed how this affected management work.
“There was no evidence the registered provider had assessed the impact of this to the service.” from the report
Assessment before admission
needs fixingOne person had moved into the home without a pre-admission assessment. Inspectors recommended that the provider review its assessment procedures.
“One person had been admitted to the service without the completion of a pre-admission assessment.” from the report
Provider not visible to families
minorThe provider did not have robust arrangements to engage with people, relatives and staff. Inspectors recommended closer engagement.
“We recommend the provider reflects on the feedback we received and considers ways to engage more closely with people, their relatives and the staff team.” from the report
- 01Has the required fire drill now been completed, and what did it show about how people would be evacuated?
- 02How are staff shortages affecting the registered manager's time for audits, records and other management duties?
- 03What quality checks are now carried out by the provider, and how are actions tracked to completion?
- 04How do you make sure every person has a completed pre-admission assessment before moving in?
- 05How are activities matched to each person's interests, especially during the winter?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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.
Every inspection of Scottlyn
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 July 2014.
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.