CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Mews
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe recruitment, managed risks, safe medicines practice, good infection control and a well-maintained home.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported to make choices and were cared for in the least restrictive way possible. Staff had relevant training and supported people's nutrition, healthcare and communication needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care and encouraged to develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and interests. People were supported with activities, holidays, relationships, communication and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had positive leadership, a stable staff team and systems for checking quality. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was used to make improvements.
What inspectors found, November 2019
The Mews was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor areas for further planning.
This was a planned inspection on 24 October 2019. One inspector spoke with all four people living in the home, staff, relatives and managers. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices and build independence.
Staffing, medicines, infection control and building safety were managed well. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. People were supported with activities, holidays, healthcare and communication. The report also noted that end of life wishes should be explored and recorded, and that there were no specific oral healthcare plans, although oral care was monitored daily.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines records were accurate and two staff were involved in administration to reduce the risk of errors.
“People were supported by a stable staff team.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a warm, patient and friendly way. People's privacy, dignity and equality were respected.
“We observed staff were kind and caring with people and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferred routines, interests and communication needs. Staff supported people to make choices and become more independent.
“People received person-centred care and support in a way that was flexible and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in activities, social events, short breaks and holidays away from the home.
“People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities to provide them with stimulation, entertainment, socialisation and ensure they were part of the local community.” from the report
Strong management
The manager used audits, action plans, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements. Staff said they felt supported.
“The registered manager had established systems to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
End of life wishes
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. The manager agreed to explore and record people's wishes if appropriate, so families should check whether this has been completed.
“The registered manager agreed to explore, and record people's end of life wishes, as appropriate.” from the report
Oral healthcare plans
minorThe report says there were no specific oral healthcare plans. Staff did monitor and record oral care each day, but families should ask how this is documented now.
“Whilst there were no specific oral healthcare plans, we saw people's oral care was monitored and recorded on a daily basis.” from the report
- 01How are my relative's oral healthcare needs recorded and reviewed now?
- 02Have people's end of life wishes been explored and recorded, where appropriate?
- 03How will you support my relative to take part in activities, holidays and community life?
- 04How often will my relative and family be involved in reviewing the care plan?
- 05What recent audits or action plans have led to improvements in the home?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; the previous inspection had also rated all five areas Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some decoration and garden improvements recommended.
The inspection was announced and took place on 24 May 2017. One inspector spoke with the manager, care workers, relatives and a care professional. The inspector also observed people, checked care and medicine records, and reviewed staffing, incident and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines management, regular staff training and supervision, and appropriate support with food, health care and decision-making.
People appeared happy and relaxed with staff. Care was described as personal and responsive, with activities linked to people's interests and support to take part in community life. The home met legal requirements, but some decoration, kitchen areas and garden access needed review.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and suitable checks when recruiting staff. Medicines were stored and administered safely, with clear plans for medicines given only when needed.
“Medicines at the home were managed and administered safely and effectively.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Staff understood people's personalities, preferences and communication styles. Inspectors saw positive relationships and respectful personal care.
“Staff demonstrated a genuine interest in people as individuals and were empathetic in their approach.” from the report
Personal activities
People were supported to enjoy activities, holidays and trips based on their interests, both at home and in the community.
“Individuals were supported to engage in a range of events and activities linked to their interests, both with the home and in the community.” from the report
Support with health and choices
The home involved families and professionals in decisions and responded to health concerns. Inspectors found that best-interest decisions and legal safeguards were documented when needed.
“Professionals we spoke with also confirmed the service was very proactive in ensuring people had access to a range of health services in a timely and effective manner.” from the report
Open management and checks
Staff, relatives and professionals were positive about the manager. The home used audits and meetings to identify and follow up issues.
“The registered manager showed us records confirming regular checks and audits were carried out at the home.” from the report
Decoration and kitchen areas
minorSome decoration needed refreshing. Parts of the kitchen were worn or broken, and some carpets were stained. Inspectors recommended a planned review and refresh.
“We noted the decoration in some areas of the home was in need of refreshing or updating.” from the report
Garden access and shelter
minorThe garden had limited formal access paths and no shaded areas for sunny days. Inspectors recommended reviewing access and sheltered facilities.
“The garden area was generally level but had limited formal access paths and there were no shaded areas for people to enjoy the outdoors on sunny days.” from the report
Care plan reviews
minorSome assessments used tick-box documentation, and formal care plan reviews were sometimes short. The report says care plans were being reviewed after the provider changed its documentation.
“Care plans were subject to a formal review as to whether they remained appropriate. These were often limited to short statements” from the report
- 01What improvements have been made to the worn or broken kitchen areas and stained carpets since the inspection?
- 02What changes have been made to the garden paths and shaded areas?
- 03How do you make sure care plan reviews contain enough detail about changes in a person's needs?
- 04How do you check that all entries in the communications book are signed?
- 05How are staffing levels decided when people are going on outings, holidays or to events?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care, medicines, staffing, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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 The Mews
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.