CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Somerset House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, providing testing, managing visits and admissions, and preventing or managing infection outbreaks. The provider also had measures to reduce the risks linked to COVID-19 staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Somerset House Nursing Home: inspectors found good infection-control practice, but the service was inspected and not rated.
This was a targeted inspection on 3 February 2022. It looked mainly at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and asked about staffing pressures. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors found the home clean, with enough protective equipment and regular COVID-19 testing for people and staff. They were assured that the home was managing visiting, admissions, social distancing, hygiene and infection outbreaks safely.
Staff vaccination records were kept and the home was meeting the vaccination requirements in force at the time. The report also says staff worked as a team to support people's wellbeing and that contingency plans helped meet people's needs.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a new overall rating or full ratings for the five areas of care. It should not be treated as a full assessment of all aspects of the home.
Clean environment
The home was clean and had detailed cleaning schedules, including deep cleaning of some rooms.
“The service was clean and free from any unpleasant odours.” from the report
Infection-control equipment
There was enough protective equipment, and inspectors were assured that it was used effectively and safely.
“There was enough personal protective equipment PPE such as aprons, gloves and masks.” from the report
Testing and vaccination checks
People and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19, and records showed staff vaccinations had been checked.
“Staff and people were tested regularly for COVID-19.” from the report
Support during the pandemic
Staff worked together to support people's wellbeing, with contingency plans intended to keep people's needs met.
“Staff had worked well as a team to help promote people's wellbeing throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection-control arrangements are in place now, and when was the infection prevention and control policy last updated?
- 02How will you manage staffing pressures if staff are absent because of illness or other COVID-19-related reasons?
- 03How are visits from family members being managed now?
- 04How do you test people and staff for infections, and how would you respond to an outbreak?
- 05How will you assess and meet my relative's individual care needs, since this inspection did not rate the wider areas of care?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the wider areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor improvements still needed in medicines records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found improvements in risk management, medicines, care records, staffing consistency and quality monitoring.
People received their medicines as prescribed, but records for creams and other treatments applied to the skin were not always complete. The manager agreed to address this. Staff were caring, respected people's privacy and dignity, and supported choice, activities and access to healthcare.
The previous inspection, published in March 2019, rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach of Regulation 17. At this inspection, the improvements were judged sufficient and the home was no longer in breach.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found staff were caring and respectful. People's privacy, dignity and independence were supported.
“Staff were caring and treated people with respect.” from the report
Safer staffing
The home had recruited more staff and had not needed agency staff for about four months. Inspectors saw enough staff during the visit.
“More staff had been recruited and the provider had not required any agency staff for approximately four months.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained information about people's needs and preferences and were regularly reviewed. Staff recorded the care they provided.
“Work to improve the quality of care plans and the person-centred detail in them had continued and been sustained.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to join activities, go on outings and maintain contact with friends and family.
“People were supported to take part in leisure and social activities.” from the report
Improved leadership
The quality monitoring system was more effective and the manager had sustained improvements from the previous inspection.
“The registered manager had continued to make improvements to the quality and safety of the service and these improvements had been sustained.” from the report
Creams and topical medicines records
needs fixingInspectors found that administration of creams and other topical medicines was not always properly recorded. The manager agreed to address this.
“Further work was required to ensure the administration of people's creams and topical medications was properly recorded.” from the report
Oral health checks
minorInspectors discussed reviewing the oral healthcare assessment so that people needing a more detailed oral health plan could be identified.
“We also discussed reviewing the provider's oral healthcare assessment to ensure it identified all people for whom a more detailed oral health care plan may be needed.” from the report
Meal portions
minorMost people were satisfied with the food, but two people said portion sizes were sometimes too large.
“Two people commented that portion sizes were too large at times, but most people were very satisfied with the meals provided.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure creams and other topical medicines are recorded every time they are given?
- 02What changes have been made to the oral healthcare assessment, and how are detailed oral health plans identified?
- 03How many staff are usually on duty for each shift, and has the home continued to avoid using agency staff?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05How do residents and relatives give feedback, and how are complaints followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality, safety and care provided, covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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 Somerset House Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 July 2018.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of York
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 £980 to £1,270 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 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.