CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tanfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Inspectors found that some doors were propped open and that the medicines policy needed updating, but door safety devices were purchased after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had personalised assessments and care plans, received support from trained staff and were helped to access healthcare. Their dietary needs and choices were met, and their weights were monitored.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with respect and kindness. People were involved in decisions, had privacy, and were supported to maintain independence and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were regularly reviewed and reflected people's needs and preferences. People were supported with activities, holidays, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management carried out regular quality checks and shared learning with staff. Staff, relatives and professionals gave positive feedback, although one commissioner said communication about a person's progress could be more frequent.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicines, fire safety and environment improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 21 August 2019. One inspector spoke with all five people living at the home, staff, a relative and outside professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff records and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they liked living at the home and received the care and support they needed. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported their health, relationships, activities and independence.
The report identified some areas to improve. The medicines policy did not cover all current best practice guidance. Two doors were propped open during the inspection, although safety devices were then bought and arranged for fitting. The provider was also asked to review the policy.
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs, preferences and the support staff should provide. Staff knew people well and kept plans up to date.
“They included details about people's individual needs and preferences and guidance for staff to follow to ensure people received personalised care and support.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were kind, respectful and considerate. Staff protected privacy and supported people to make choices.
“Staff treated people with respect and engaged with them in a supportive and friendly way.” from the report
Skilled support
Staff received induction, relevant training, supervision and medicines competency checks. Staff understood people's individual needs.
“People were supported by competent staff who understood their individual needs.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in walks, social events, counselling, group activities and holidays. Staff also encouraged people to develop daily living skills.
“People had the opportunity to participate in one to one counselling sessions as well as a range of group activities that included cooking, relaxation, pottery and art.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Management checks had improved since the previous inspection and covered areas including the environment and medicines. Records showed action was taken when problems were found.
“Management carried out regular quality checks of the service. These had been improved since the last inspection and covered checks of the environment, medicines and other areas of the service.” from the report
Medicines policy
needs fixingThe medicines policy did not cover every area of current best practice, including giving medicines without a person's knowledge. Inspectors recommended that the policy be reviewed and updated.
“However, it did not cover all the areas of best practice guidance.” from the report
Fire door safety
seriousA lounge door and a passageway door were propped open during the inspection. The provider said the doors would be kept closed until safety devices were fitted, and later confirmed that devices had been purchased and fitting arranged.
“However, the lounge door and a passageway door were propped open.” from the report
Home environment
minorTwo healthcare professionals felt the home looked tired and could be more homely and stimulating. This was not reflected in a lower rating.
“Two healthcare professionals told us that they felt the home environment was tired looking and could be more 'homely' and 'stimulating' for people.” from the report
Information about backgrounds
minorStaff understood people's differences, but care plans contained little detail about people's earlier experiences. Management said more information would be added.
“There was some information about people's backgrounds in their assessment records but little detail in people's care plans.” from the report
Updates for commissioners
needs fixingOne commissioner felt communication about a person's progress could be more frequent. Management said this would be addressed.
“Another told us that they felt communication about a person's progress could be provided more often.” from the report
- 01Has the medicines policy been updated to cover all relevant best practice, including covert administration?
- 02Have the door safety devices been fitted, and has the fire risk assessment been updated?
- 03What improvements have been made to make the home more homely and stimulating?
- 04How are people's earlier experiences and backgrounds recorded in their care plans?
- 05How often will families and care commissioners receive updates about a person's progress?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the premises and care provided, and covered all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Tanfield House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful and personalised care, with some medicines and maintenance records to improve.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 3 May 2017. One inspector spoke with all five people living at the home, managers, care staff, a relative and health professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, audits and other records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff understood their needs, medicines were generally managed safely and people were supported to make choices and remain independent.
The home had stayed at Good since the previous inspection. Inspectors noted some issues to address, including medicines being kept in a less secure wooden cabinet, incomplete information in some medicines records and an unsealed section of bathroom flooring.
Respectful, individual care
Staff knew people well, listened to them and involved them in decisions about their care and daily lives.
“People were encouraged and supported by staff to be fully involved in decisions about their care and their independence was supported.” from the report
Support for independence
People were helped to build everyday living skills such as cooking, cleaning and managing their clothes.
“People were supported by staff to develop their everyday living skills such as cleaning their room, cooking and laundering their clothes” from the report
Good response to changing needs
Staff monitored people's wellbeing and acted when their mental health or other needs changed. They involved health professionals when needed.
“Records showed staff were responsive in taking appropriate action including contacting health professionals and making health appointments” from the report
Strong management oversight
Managers were available to people and staff. Regular checks and feedback were used to identify problems and improve the service.
“Records showed that deficiencies in the service were identified and action taken to address them and to make improvements when required.” from the report
Medicines cabinet
needs fixingMedicines were kept in a locked wooden kitchen cabinet, which inspectors said was less secure than a purpose-made metal cabinet. Managers said they planned to replace it.
“The storage of medicines was discussed with management staff who told us they planned to replace the cabinet.” from the report
Incomplete PRN medicine record
needs fixingThe home recorded stock of medicines given when needed, but did not record why a PRN painkiller had been given. Managers said this would be recorded in future.
“There were records maintained of the stock of medicines to be given 'when required' [PRN] but there was no record of the reason why a person had received a 'PRN' painkilling medicine.” from the report
Bathroom flooring
minorPart of the upstairs bathroom floor near the bath panel was not sealed and could become damp. Managers said they would address this.
“However, the upstairs bathroom flooring was not sealed in the area close to the bath panel so the floor was of risk of becoming damp.” from the report
- 01Has the wooden medicines cabinet been replaced with a purpose-made metal cabinet?
- 02How do you now record the reason for giving a PRN painkiller and monitor whether it worked?
- 03What was done to seal the upstairs bathroom flooring near the bath panel?
- 04How are staffing levels adjusted when people need support with appointments or activities?
- 05How often are care plans reviewed with each person, and how are changes in mental health recorded and shared with staff?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC areas, with ratings of Good in each area. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 June 2017 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 Tanfield House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 May 2012.
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 Brent
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. 74 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.