CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Mews Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed and there were enough suitable staff. Recruitment checks, infection control and safeguarding arrangements were also found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported to access healthcare, eat and drink enough, and receive care from trained staff. Inspectors also found that consent and best-interest processes were being followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The overall rating used ratings from this inspection and the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences and were regularly reviewed. People could take part in activities, maintain relationships and have their complaints investigated.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had introduced stronger checks, an electronic care planning system and a home improvement action plan. Inspectors found an open culture and evidence that accidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns were reviewed for learning.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safer medicines, enough staff and personalised care after improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 and 9 November 2023. Inspectors spoke with 5 people living at the home, 6 family members, 11 staff and a visiting health professional. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment and supervision files, and management records.
The home provides personal and nursing care for up to 47 older people. There were 41 people living there at the time. Inspectors found that medicines were being managed safely, risks were assessed, staffing levels were suitable and care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. The inspection found that the home had improved since the previous rating of Requires Improvement in January 2023, and it was no longer breaching regulations.
Medicines managed safely
Staff had the required training and checks before giving medicines. Inspectors found that people received their medicines as prescribed.
“Staff received the necessary training and had their competencies assessed before being permitted to administer medicines.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans had been improved since the previous inspection. They recorded people's needs and preferences and were updated when needs changed.
“Care plans contained information that accurately reflected people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff were available to meet people's needs. The provider had also acted on the earlier recommendation about staffing and recruitment.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The provider had strengthened its checks on care quality. Accidents, incidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns were reviewed so that improvements could be made.
“Since our last inspection the provider had implemented robust systems to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
No registered manager in post
minorThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. A new manager had been appointed and was applying to become the registered manager.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What is the current progress of the new manager's application to become the registered manager?
- 02How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines safely?
- 03How often are care plans reviewed, and how are families involved when a person's needs change?
- 04What actions remain on the home improvement action plan, and when will they be completed?
- 05How do you monitor staffing levels on days when people's needs are higher or staff are absent?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not inspected during this visit and ratings for questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 2023 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, January 2023
The Mews Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in medicines, staffing, care planning and management systems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 10 October and 24 October 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and care staff, and reviewed records about safety and management.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found medicines were not always stored safely, restricted areas were not always secure, staffing was affected by agency use, and care plans did not contain enough detail.
People and relatives generally said staff were kind and people felt safe. A new provider had taken over six weeks before the inspection and had started a detailed action plan, but it was too early to know whether this had improved the service.
The inspection found breaches of Regulation 12 on safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 on good governance. The provider was asked for an action plan, and the CQC said it would monitor progress.
People generally felt safe
Most people and relatives said the home was safe. Safeguarding concerns were referred to the local authority and investigated.
“Most people and relatives felt the home was safe.” from the report
Kind staff
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care and staff.
“People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the care provided at The Mews Care Home.” from the report
Safeguarding procedures
Staff knew how to raise safeguarding and whistleblowing concerns, and incidents and accidents were logged and investigated.
“Staff knew about the safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures and could raise concerns, if needed.” from the report
A new improvement plan
The new provider had reviewed the service and created a detailed plan to address weaknesses, although inspectors could not yet judge whether it was working.
“The new provider had acted to address these issues. They had conducted an in-depth review of the service and implemented a detailed action plan.” from the report
Medicines storage and guidance
seriousMedicines were kept in a treatment room that was too hot, and temperature checks were incomplete. Guidance for some medicines to be given when needed was not detailed enough.
“The provider had not ensured medicines were stored safely. They had also not ensured staff had the correct skills, knowledge and information to administer medicines.” from the report
Security and risk information
needs fixingSome restricted areas, including the sluice, were not locked. Risk assessments and emergency evacuation plans did not always contain enough detail.
“Some restricted areas, such as the sluice, were not secure.” from the report
Staffing consistency
needs fixingThere were usually enough staff, but frequent agency use and staff turnover meant people did not always see a consistent team. Staffing levels had not been monitored consistently.
“However, the staff deployed were inconsistent due to a high usage of agency staff.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
needs fixingCare plans lacked enough information about individual needs, including some health conditions. Inspectors also found that meaningful activities were not happening consistently.
“People's care had not been planned in line with their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Weak quality oversight
seriousAudits and quality checks were not consistent, and investigations were not reliably used to learn or improve. There was also too little regular involvement of people, relatives and staff.
“The provider lacked effective systems to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
- 01How are medicines in the upstairs treatment room now stored, and how are room and fridge temperatures recorded every day?
- 02What guidance is now available for each person's when-required medicine, including signs that someone who cannot communicate verbally may need it?
- 03What has been done to reduce agency use and improve staff consistency on each floor?
- 04How have care plans been updated for people with conditions such as diabetes, and how are meaningful activities now provided?
- 05What evidence can you show that the action plan, audits and family feedback are leading to improvements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected, and the overall rating used previous ratings for questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 January 2023 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 Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2023Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 November 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
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 £1,210 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.