CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Tixover House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practice while checking staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 9 February 2022. It followed concerns about staffing and focused on infection prevention and control, including whether staffing pressures were affecting care.
Inspectors found that the home had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures. They were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment, hygiene and possible outbreaks.
The home kept families informed about changes to guidance. Staff met visitors, checked testing and symptoms, and followed isolation guidance. Staff also changed into uniform and put on protective equipment before contacting residents.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give a rating for the overall quality of care or for most of the five questions.
Family communication
The home used emails and telephone calls to keep families informed about changing government guidance and important information.
“Changes to government guidance and important information was communicated to people's friends and family via emails and telephone calls.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
Staff met visitors on arrival and managed visits with checks on test results, symptoms and recent exposure.
“Staff were on hand to meet and greet visitors on arrival to the service to ensure they had all the information they required and the visit was managed in a safe way.” from the report
Protective equipment and hygiene
Additional staff checks were used for PPE and handwashing. Staff changed before having contact with residents.
“Additional staff competencies were used to check staff complied with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and used effective handwashing techniques.” from the report
Managing isolation
The home followed isolation guidance and used risk assessments when isolation periods were shortened after negative test results.
“Government guidance for isolation periods was being followed and risk assessments were used where isolation periods were shortened following negative test results.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What staffing pressures are affecting the home now, and what measures are in place to prevent them affecting residents' care?
- 02How are staff competencies for PPE use and handwashing checked currently?
- 03How are visitors' test results, symptoms and recent exposure checked before visits?
- 04How are isolation periods decided when a negative test result means isolation may be shortened?
- 05How does the home make sure staff and visiting professionals meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirements or have a valid exemption?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 2022 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, March 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that some short-stay care plans and a complaint response did not meet the home’s expected standard.
This was an unannounced inspection visit on 18 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with eight people, four relatives and staff. They observed care, reviewed four care records and checked staffing, accidents, medicines and quality records.
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were trained, there were enough staff, medicines were given safely and people received help with food and health needs. Staff were kind, respectful and supported people to make choices.
The main shortfalls were about being responsive. One person returning for a short stay did not have an updated care plan and did not receive all care in their preferred way. A complaint was also not handled fully in line with the home’s procedure.
The home was rated Good overall and for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. The overall rating remained Good, compared with Good at the previous inspection.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff were consistently on duty, including staff with the right training. Staff were not rushed and responded quickly to call alarms.
“There was a sufficiently large pool of staff employed to ensure there were always enough staff.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Only trained and assessed senior staff gave medicines. Records and audits were used to check medicines were stored and given safely.
“People were supported to have their medicines at the right times.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people with dignity and encouraged them to make choices and stay as independent as possible. Relatives and people gave consistently positive feedback.
“Staff were kind and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Good food and health support
People had choices of freshly prepared meals and received help with eating and drinking when needed. Staff arranged visits from health professionals, including during recovery from hospital stays.
“There was a strong emphasis on people eating and drinking well.” from the report
Active management oversight
The management team carried out audits and used people's feedback to make changes. Staff were involved in improvement work and felt able to raise concerns.
“The home had a comprehensive audit system in place.” from the report
Short-stay care plan was not updated
needs fixingOne person returning for a one-week respite stay did not have their latest needs and preferences recorded. As a result, some care was not provided in the way they preferred or needed.
“A person who returned to the service for a one-week stay did not have an updated care plan before their latest stay.” from the report
- 01How do you check that a person returning for a respite stay has an up-to-date care plan before they arrive?
- 02What changes were made to the admission policy after the review mentioned in the report?
- 03How do you make sure people's preferences are followed during short stays?
- 04How are complaints monitored, and how will I be told if a response is delayed?
- 05How will you involve relatives in reviewing a person's care plan and preferences?
This was an unannounced planned inspection looking at the overall quality of the care home, including all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 March 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 Tixover House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 2011.
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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Rutland
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 £1,310 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 13 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.