CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Spennymoor Care Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, clean premises and appropriate use of PPE.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 9 December 2020. It focused on infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found the premises clean and well maintained. Staff had recent infection control training, used PPE appropriately and COVID-19 testing was being carried out where possible.
The home restricted visits in line with local guidance. Staff helped people stay in touch with relatives and friends by telephone and video calls.
The overall service was inspected but not rated. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full quality rating for the home.
Clean premises
The home was clean and well maintained, with regular cleaning schedules for all areas.
“The premises were clean and well-maintained. Staff followed schedules to ensure all areas of the home were regularly cleaned.” from the report
PPE and training
Staff had recent infection control training and inspectors saw them wearing PPE appropriately.
“Staff had received recent training in infection prevention and control, including how to put on and take off their personal protective equipment (PPE) in a safe way.” from the report
Testing arrangements
COVID-19 testing was being carried out in line with good practice guidance where possible.
“Tests for COVID-19 were being carried out in line with good practice guidance, where possible.” from the report
Contact with relatives
Although visits were restricted at the time, staff supported people to keep in touch by telephone and video calls.
“During this time staff were supporting people to stay in contact with their relatives and friends via the telephone calls, or via on-line video calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How do you make sure staff continue to use PPE safely?
- 03How are people tested for COVID-19 and how are the results managed?
- 04What are the current visiting arrangements?
- 05How will my relative be supported to keep in touch with family if visits are restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices and did not provide ratings for the other quality areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 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, August 2019
Spennymoor Care Home Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but some legal authorisations and involvement records needed attention.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 23 July 2019. The inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, staff files, medicines records, audits and other documents.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings, suitable care plans, ongoing staff training and kind relationships between staff and people.
There were some issues to put right. Some people who lacked capacity to agree to their care did not have the required legal authorisations in place. There was also little written evidence that people and relatives had been involved in care plan reviews, and some people wanted more activities.
The report says the last rating was also Good, published on 27 January 2017. A Good rating means inspectors found consistently good outcomes, respectful care, and a service that was consistently managed and well-led.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. The home had safeguarding procedures, suitable staffing and checks to manage risks.
“People said they felt safe living at Spennymoor.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home extremely clean, with no unpleasant smells. Staff used suitable protective equipment during personal care.
“The home was extremely clean on inspection with no malodours detected throughout the building.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as compassionate and kind. Inspectors observed staff supporting privacy, dignity and choice.
“People felt staff were kind and caring and treated them with compassion.” from the report
Good staff preparation
New staff had a six-week induction, with ongoing training and regular appraisals to identify support and development needs.
“There was a thorough, six week induction in place for new staff” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's choices and preferences, and staff were knowledgeable about how people wanted their care delivered.
“Care plans were person-centred and included information about people's choices and preferences.” from the report
Legal authorisations were not in place
needs fixingSome people had been assessed as unable to consent to their care, but the required authorisations had not been applied for. The manager agreed this was an oversight and contacted the local authority immediately after the inspection.
“Some people living at the service had been assessed as lacking capacity to consent to care and treatment, and authorisations should have been applied for.” from the report
Care plan involvement was not well recorded
needs fixingInspectors found little evidence in care records that people or relatives had been involved in care planning and reviews. Management agreed to record this better.
“However, there was little evidence within care plans of people who used the service or relatives being involved with the care planning and review process.” from the report
Some people wanted more activities
minorThe home offered exercises, entertainers, arts and crafts and religious visits. However, some people said they were sometimes bored and wanted more activities.
“I am sometimes bored, I'd like more going on” from the report
Views about food differed
minorFood was freshly prepared, balanced and plentiful, with choices offered. However, inspectors recorded mixed views, including one relative saying that their relative did not like the food.
“People's comments regarding the food were mixed.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that the required legal authorisations are in place for anyone who cannot consent to their care?
- 02How are people and their relatives involved in writing and reviewing care plans, and where is this recorded?
- 03What activities are currently available, and how do you respond when someone says they are bored or wants more to do?
- 04How do you check that meals match each person's preferences, especially when someone does not like the food?
- 05How do you use feedback, audits and complaints to make changes to the service?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the overall rating and each question rating remaining Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 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 Spennymoor Care Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Spennymoor Care Home Limited →
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Spennymoor Care Home Limited →
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bolton
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 £1,260 a week. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during 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.