CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Poplars Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, safeguarding systems were in place, medicines were managed safely, and safety and infection control checks were carried out. Daily monitoring records were sometimes incomplete, although people and staff said the care itself was provided.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors did observe positive and caring interactions between staff and people.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found that the manager and provider had systems to monitor quality, acted on external audits and had plans for improvement. Oversight of daily monitoring charts was not yet fully developed.
What inspectors found, May 2023
The Poplars Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe care and positive leadership, but daily care records were not always complete.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 March and 4 April 2023. Three inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked medicines, care records, staff files and management records.
The inspection followed concerns about staffing and record keeping. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, risks were assessed, and the home was clean. However, daily records did not always show the care that had been given. Some people also said they sometimes had to wait for support.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and well-led were rated Good. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Risk management
People's risks were assessed in a person-centred way and plans were reviewed as needs changed.
“Risks were assessed and plans to reduce risks were person centred.” from the report
Medicines
People received their medicines when needed. Staff were trained and checks were made on medicines management and competency.
“Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines when required, by appropriately trained staff.” from the report
Caring interactions
Inspectors saw staff guide and reassure people, including people living with dementia. Feedback about staff was mostly positive.
“We observed positive and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Management oversight
The manager had oversight of the service and used quality checks and action plans to identify improvements.
“The registered manager was clear about their role and had oversight of the service, along with the nominated individual.” from the report
Incomplete daily records
needs fixingRecords of personal care, dental care and repositioning were not completed consistently. Inspectors recommended that the home ensure records accurately show the care provided.
“Daily monitoring charts were completed inconsistently. These included records of checks around personal care, dental care and when people needed to be repositioned in bed.” from the report
Some delays in support
needs fixingSome people said they occasionally waited for care or felt they had to fit around the home's routines. Inspectors found enough staff during their visits, but recruitment was still ongoing.
“We received some feedback that some people occasionally had to wait for care or felt they needed to fit in with the routines of the home.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure daily monitoring charts accurately record personal care, dental care and repositioning?
- 02How do you monitor whether people are waiting too long for care or having to fit around the home's routines?
- 03How many permanent staff vacancies remain, and how are agency staff made familiar with people's needs?
- 04Is the new audit for checking daily monitoring records now in use, and what has it found?
- 05How can relatives give feedback without needing to use an online review website or wait for a meeting?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, prompted partly by concerns about staffing and record keeping; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements during the coronavirus outbreak.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 1 December 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because the home had a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found systems for safe visiting, social distancing, room isolation where possible, protective equipment and regular coronavirus testing. They were assured that the home was managing infection risks, admissions, hygiene and outbreaks.
The home was not given an overall quality rating, and the Safe question was also marked inspected but not rated. The inspection did not assess the other four questions.
Safe visiting
The home screened visitors before entry to reduce infection risks.
“Systems were in place to allow safe visiting, including screening visitors to reduce any potential infection risk, before they entered the building.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used protective equipment, received infection-control training and had their practice checked.
“Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE). Training in infection prevention and control measures and the appropriate use of PPE had taken place.” from the report
Testing arrangements
Regular coronavirus testing was available for people living at the home and staff. Rapid test kits were also available for symptoms or emergency agency staff.
“A regular programme of Covid-19 testing was in place for people and the staff team.” from the report
Safe admissions
Inspectors found that systems were in place to admit people safely during the outbreak.
“Systems were in place to admit people safely into the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened before entering the home?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested for Covid-19 now?
- 03How do you check that staff are using PPE and washing their hands correctly?
- 04What arrangements are used when someone has symptoms or needs to isolate?
- 05How do you safely admit new residents and manage any future infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, including the Safe question; the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 2020 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 Poplars Care Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 April 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
45 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockton-on-Tees
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 £1,190 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“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.