CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tanglewood Mews
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe, but management and quality checks required improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 26 January 2021 and continued collecting evidence until 11 March 2021. They looked only at Safe and Well-led because the inspection was prompted by concerns about management, infection control and staffing.
The home had enough staff, safe recruitment processes and safe medicines arrangements. Inspectors saw staff using personal protective equipment correctly. The home was clean and people were supported to have choice, control and greater independence.
Management had improved, but quality checks had missed overdue or inconsistent care records and risk assessments. There was also no registered manager during the inspection, although a permanent manager had been appointed and had applied to register. The overall rating stayed Good, while Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Safe medicines
Medicines records showed that people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff had medicine training and regular competency checks.
“Medicines administration records showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention arrangements were in place, including appropriate protective equipment, testing and cleaning.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks were completed before staff were appointed.
“There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe.” from the report
Choice and independence
Support promoted choice, control, independence and inclusion. People were given opportunities to gain skills and become more independent.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Outdated risk assessments
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not reflect people's current needs and were overdue for review. This could make it harder for staff to follow the right guidance.
“Risk assessments were not always up to date.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingAudits had not identified some overdue care reviews, inconsistent records and assessments that did not follow the latest guidance.
“Quality systems within the home were not always robust.” from the report
Management changes
needs fixingThere had not been a consistent manager. A permanent manager was appointed during the inspection and applied to register with the CQC.
“There had not been a consistent manager at the service.” from the report
Staff involvement
minorSome staff did not feel part of the wider team and had little opportunity to influence how the service was run. The new manager had started steps to address this.
“Some staff, however, expressed not feeling part of the wider staff team and having little opportunity to influence the running of the service.” from the report
- 01How often are each person's risk assessments and care reviews checked and updated?
- 02What changes have been made to the quality audits since the inspection, and how do you know they identify problems?
- 03Is the permanent manager now registered with the CQC?
- 04How are staff involved in decisions about the running and development of the home?
- 05Who is the first aider on each shift, and how is this information made clear to staff?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not inspected and earlier ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 April 2021 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, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with two privacy issues addressed during the inspection.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 21 and 22 August 2019. They spoke with people using the service, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, training information, audits and policies.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, personalised care, good links with health professionals and support for people to make choices and become more independent.
Inspectors found that some communal areas in supported living apartments were being used for staff paperwork and training. A large sign identified people's homes as a care facility. The manager agreed to address the first issue and removed the sign before the inspection ended.
Person-centred support
Staff knew people well and provided support based on their individual preferences and needs.
“People received person centred support and staff knew people very well.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered and recorded safely. People also received regular medicine reviews.
“Medicines were managed well, safely administered and recorded accurately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. People were supported with dignity, choice and independence.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect at all times.” from the report
Clean environment
The premises were clean and tidy, with infection control arrangements in place.
“The premises were very clean and tidy with no odours.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, learn skills, use local services and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People were supported to be independent, their rights were respected and access to advocacy was regularly available.” from the report
Communal areas used by staff
minorSome communal areas in people's apartments were being used for staff paperwork, computer access and training. The manager agreed this was not appropriate and said alternative storage and laptops would be provided.
“Some communal areas of people's apartments were used as staff office space; storing papers and for computer access for staff training.” from the report
Sign identifying people's homes
minorA large sign identified the home and apartments as a care facility. The manager agreed it did not support the intended outcomes and removed it before the inspection ended.
“On approaching the home and apartments was a very large 'Autism Care' sign on display that identified people's homes as a care facility.” from the report
- 01How are communal areas in the supported living apartments used now, and where are staff paperwork, records and training carried out?
- 02How will you protect my relative's privacy and make sure their home is not publicly identified as a care facility?
- 03How will my relative's care plan be written and reviewed in a way they can understand, including easy-read or photo information if needed?
- 04What activities, community visits and independence goals would be available for my relative?
- 05How are medicines reviewed, including checks for unnecessary or excessive medication?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five rating areas; it examined the care home premises and care, but for supported living it examined personal care and support, not the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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.
Every inspection of Tanglewood Mews
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 January 2015.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 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.