CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Trees Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safeguarding, risk management, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control systems were generally safe. Call bells were answered promptly and medicines records had no gaps.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had relevant training. However, food and fluid records did not always show whether people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration reached their targets, and dental support was difficult to access.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and knew people well. People were offered choices, supported to stay independent and helped to keep in contact with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received personalised support, activities and help to maintain relationships. However, some care plans lacked detail and alerts in the electronic system were not always acknowledged or acted on.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers were approachable and there was a caring, family atmosphere. However, quality checks had not identified care-record shortfalls, clinical escalation arrangements were unclear and improvement plans were not fully formalised or tracked.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Trees Nursing Home was rated Good overall, with kind and safe care but weaknesses in management systems and care records.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 15 March 2023. One inspector and a nursing specialist adviser visited. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment and health and safety documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, were treated kindly and had their care and activities adapted to their needs.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Care plans did not always explain people's preferences or needs in enough detail. Electronic care records, clinical escalation processes and improvement plans were not being used fully.
The overall rating was Good. The previous rating was also Good, published on 13 September 2019 under the previous provider. This inspection followed the provider becoming a limited company and a change of name.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with kindness and dignity. Staff knew people's interests and gave reassurance in a consistent way.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were organised, stored safely and given as expected. Inspectors found complete medicines administration records.
“Medicines systems were well organised, and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Good staffing and recruitment
Staff were visible during the inspection and call bells were answered promptly. Recruitment checks were completed to check staff were suitable.
“Staff were recruited safely with checks carried out to ensure they were suitable to work in the care sector.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities linked to their interests, including gardening, art and one-to-one activities. The home also supported contact with family and friends.
“People were supported to follow their interests.” from the report
Approachable management
People, relatives and staff said managers were open and approachable. There was a strong family atmosphere in the home.
“People, relatives, and staff consistently referred to a family atmosphere.” from the report
Care plans lacked personal detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain people's preferences, the support they needed or how their emotional needs should be met. The home relied heavily on staff knowing people well.
“Care plans lacked detail about specific ways in which people preferred to be supported.” from the report
Clinical concerns were not always clearly escalated
seriousThe electronic system raised alerts that were not always acknowledged or acted on. There was also no specific process for reviewing clinical escalation plans, making it harder to tell when urgent action was needed.
“the alerts created by the electronic record were not always acknowledged or acted on.” from the report
Some nutrition records were incomplete
needs fixingFor people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration, not all food and fluid charts recorded the amounts taken. This meant inspectors could not always see whether targets were being met.
“not all daily log entries described quantities taken so it was not always possible to see if people were reaching their target intake.” from the report
Some areas needed repair or improvement
minorInspectors saw some shabby areas, including carpet repaired with duct tape. The home had plans for new carpets and redecoration.
“Some areas of the service had become a little shabby, for example, some carpet had been repaired with duct tape.” from the report
- 01How have you improved care plans so they record each person's preferences and the exact support they need?
- 02What is the current process for responding to electronic care-record alerts and escalating abnormal observations?
- 03How do you formally assess nurses' competence for catheterisation and wound care?
- 04How do you check that people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration are reaching their food and fluid targets?
- 05Which planned repairs and improvements have been completed, and how are remaining actions tracked?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; the report says it followed the provider becoming a limited company and a change of name. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 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 Trees Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 December 2022.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.