CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springvale Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including PPE, testing, cleaning, safe admissions and outbreak planning. The provider also had regular agency staff available if COVID-19 caused staffing shortages.
- 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
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found the home was clean, used personal protective equipment properly and had infection control measures in place. They were assured that testing, safe admissions, social distancing and outbreak planning were being managed.
The home supported visits and encouraged contact between residents and relatives. Staff and professional visitors had to show their vaccination status, unless an exemption or emergency applied.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating, and it was not a full assessment of all areas of care.
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, with regular cleaning of surfaces.
“The home was clean and there was regular cleaning of all surfaces.” from the report
Infection control
Staff had suitable PPE and had received extra training on using it and preventing infection.
“Staff wore appropriate PPE and had access to this throughout the home.” from the report
Family visits
The home supported visits and encouraged meaningful contact between residents and their relatives.
“Staff encouraged visiting between people and their relatives to allow for meaningful social interaction.” from the report
COVID-19 risk management
The manager had identified and managed COVID-19 risks for people, staff and visitors.
“The registered manager had identified, assessed and mitigated all COVID-19 related risks to people, staff and visitors.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are COVID-19 staffing pressures still affecting the home, and how often are agency staff being used?
- 02How are staff trained and checked on the safe use of PPE?
- 03How are visitors currently tested or checked before entering the home?
- 04How does the home keep relatives' visits going when there is an infection risk or outbreak?
- 05How are current vaccination or exemption requirements for staff and visiting professionals managed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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 well-managed care, with fewer activities available while a new activity co-ordinator was being recruited.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 20 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were now managed safely, staffing was sufficient, care was kind and personalised, and the home had effective checks to improve quality.
There was mixed feedback about activities because the activity co-ordinator had recently left. The home was recruiting a replacement. The last inspection rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach about medicines, but inspectors said the improvements meant the breach had been resolved.
Medicines improved
Medicines were managed safely, with accurate records, clearer guidance and checks to identify and resolve problems quickly.
“The provider had implemented effective checks to ensure people received the correct medicines and issues were identified and resolved quickly.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs, and people said staff responded quickly when they asked for help.
“The provider ensured there were enough staff available to meet people's individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's needs and preferences, treated people with dignity and encouraged them to remain as independent as possible.
“People received good care from kind and caring staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's preferences and how they wanted their care provided. Plans were reviewed regularly.
“People had detailed and personalised care plans.” from the report
Improved management
The report describes better teamwork, staff morale and quality monitoring since the previous inspection.
“The provider had an effective quality assurance system which successfully identified areas for improvement and lessons learnt.” from the report
Activities temporarily reduced
minorFeedback about activities was mixed because the activity co-ordinator had recently left. The home was recruiting a replacement, and one person wanted more activities.
“We received mixed feedback about the availability of activities as the activity co-ordinator had recently left their employment.” from the report
Consultation was being reviewed
minorThe provider was reviewing how it gathered views from people and staff so that more people could take part.
“The provider was reviewing how it consulted with people and staff to ensure this was accessible to as many people as possible.” from the report
- 01How are activities being organised while the activity co-ordinator role is vacant?
- 02When do you expect to appoint a new activity co-ordinator?
- 03How do you check that medicines are recorded accurately and given at the right time?
- 04How are people who cannot communicate verbally involved in everyday choices?
- 05How can relatives share feedback or raise a complaint?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the accommodation, care, records, medicines, staffing and management systems. 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 Springvale Court
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement 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 improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Gateshead
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 £1,240 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in 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.