CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Tamar House Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicine records were not always accurate, particularly for medicines needing extra security. Some pressure mattresses were not set correctly for people's weight, and there was no regular checking process until the manager put one in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with food, drink and healthcare, and staff training had improved. Inspectors recommended stronger processes for recording consent and best-interest decisions where restrictive care plans were used.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says people looked happy and comfortable and that staff were caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says care records reflected people's needs and preferences, and complaints information was available.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider's monitoring systems had not identified the medicine and pressure mattress problems. The manager had introduced audits and an action plan, and acted immediately when the concerns were found.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Tamar House Nursing Home is Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but medicines, pressure mattress checks and quality monitoring were not reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 October 2022. Inspectors reviewed care plans, risk assessments, staff training and management records. They spoke with six people, one relative and seven staff.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Inspectors found errors in medicine records, including medicines needing extra security, and found that some pressure mattresses were not set correctly or checked through a clear process.
There were also positive findings. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Staff were caring, staffing levels were sufficient, infection control had improved, and Effective was rated Good. The manager took immediate action on the medicine and mattress issues, but the home remained in breach of Regulation 17.
People felt safe and cared for
People said they were happy with their care and felt safe. Inspectors saw staff spending time talking with people and supporting them comfortably.
“People told us they were happy with the care they received, and people said they felt safe living there.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Earlier concerns about staff deployment had been addressed, although the home was using agency nurses to cover a vacant daytime post.
“There were sufficient staff employed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Improved training
Staff had completed the required training and new staff received induction and shadowing. Staff also received supervision and appraisals.
“Staff training had improved since the last inspection.” from the report
Infection control
The home had good supplies of protective equipment and staff followed infection control practices. The home was clean and earlier infection control concerns were no longer a breach.
“The service had good stocks of gloves, aprons and masks for staff to wear.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousRecords for medicines needing extra security contained poor documentation, incorrect calculations and missing signatures. Inspectors could not be sure that one person had received the correct dose.
“Records showed poor documentation, inconsistent and wrong calculations of the number of a pain relief patches administered and held.” from the report
Pressure mattress checks
seriousSome air-filled pressure relieving mattresses were not set correctly for people's weight. There was no process to make sure they were checked regularly, although the manager introduced one immediately.
“There was no process in place to ensure staff checked these regularly.” from the report
Quality monitoring
seriousThe provider's audits and governance systems had not identified the medicine and mattress problems before the inspection. This remained a breach of Regulation 17.
“The provider had failed to identify the concerns found in the safe section of this report regarding medicines management and the monitoring of pressure relieving mattresses.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
needs fixingSome consent forms were blank, and inspectors did not always see evidence of best-interest decisions before restrictive care plans were used. The provider was given a recommendation to improve this process.
“Consent forms in some care plans were blank.” from the report
- 01What checks now confirm that controlled medicines are recorded accurately, with the correct dose, balance and two staff signatures?
- 02How often are pressure relieving mattresses checked, and how is each person's correct setting recorded?
- 03Has the permanent daytime nurse started, and how is continuity in medicines management being maintained?
- 04How are consent and best-interest decisions recorded before restrictive care plans are used?
- 05What progress has been made against the action plan requested by CQC?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; the Caring and Responsive ratings were not inspected during this visit, and the overall rating used previous ratings for questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 November 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, April 2022
Tamar House Nursing Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe recruitment, staffing and infection-control shortfalls.
Two inspectors made an unannounced visit on 21 February 2022. They spoke with 11 people, six staff, one professional and four relatives. They looked at care and medicines records, staff training and recruitment records, and how the home was managed.
Inspectors found problems with staff recruitment, training and staffing levels. Cleaning and maintenance were not consistently good. Some people were not positioned safely or comfortably when eating, and staff did not always provide enough support at mealtimes.
There were also positive findings. Medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, and people were given choices about food and drink. However, the provider had not done enough to identify and fix problems. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and managed safely. Staff recorded when people declined medicines and told relevant staff.
“People's medicines were managed and stored safely.” from the report
Risk planning
The home had records about people's health and care risks. Emergency evacuation plans and fire safety checks were in place.
“Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP), in place, which described their support needs should the home need to be evacuated in an emergency.” from the report
Choice and consent
People were offered choices about food and drink. Mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and applications for safeguards were in place where needed.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Health information
People's records included their health needs and oral health support. Staff raised changes in health with the nurse and contacted outside professionals when needed.
“Appropriate records of people's health were in place. This helped staff identify if someone's health was changing.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome staff started work without references or satisfactory evidence about their conduct in similar roles. The home had not completed risk assessments to manage these gaps.
“One staff member had been recruited and started work, even though no references had been sought.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousCare staff were also covering cleaning and laundry, including when the housekeeper was away. This reduced the time available for care, and at times there were only two care staff to support nine people who needed two staff to move.
“The provider had not ensured staff were deployed effectively.” from the report
Infection control
seriousSome areas were unclean and cleaning records were incomplete. Towels, bedding and a damp pillow were left in ways that increased the risk of cross infection. Some staff had not completed recent infection-control training.
“Staff had left some people's clean towels on the floor outside their door, some bedding had been left on a side table in a corridor and a damp pillow left to dry on a bath chair.” from the report
Mealtime support
seriousSome people were not positioned safely or comfortably to eat. Staff gave limited encouragement and checks to people who could eat independently but still needed support.
“One of the people, whose food was on an overbed table had resorted to eating a stew with their hands because the table was to the side of them and they were too low down in the bed to use their knife and fork.” from the report
Training and skills
needs fixingMany staff had not completed or updated training relevant to their roles, including nutrition, hydration, fire safety, food hygiene, infection control and safeguarding. Agency nurses' training and skills were not confirmed in writing.
“Not all staff had up to date infection control or safeguarding training.” from the report
Building and oversight
needs fixingCarpets were worn and corridors and bathrooms needed redecoration. The provider's checks had not identified or fixed important problems, and there was no regular system for gathering and reviewing people's views.
“The provider had failed to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to ensure every staff member has the required references, conduct checks, qualifications and training?
- 02How many care staff and nurses are on duty at different times, including weekends and staff leave?
- 03What changes have been made to keep the home clean and to prevent towels, bedding and other items being left in corridors or on the floor?
- 04How do staff now check that each person is positioned safely and comfortably and gets the right help and encouragement during meals?
- 05What work has been completed on the worn carpets, corridors and bathrooms, and how are people's views now gathered and reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only, prompted by concerns about infection control and staffing; the other key-question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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.
Every inspection of Tamar House Nursing Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.