CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Tudor House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, risk assessments, infection control and investigations of incidents were found to be managed safely, although staffing deployment was not always effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible and the provider used audits, meetings and checks to monitor quality and identify improvements. Staff, relatives and people using the service were involved in the running of the home.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, but staff were not always available when people needed help.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 25 August 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because the inspection followed safeguarding concerns and was planned around the previous rating.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely, and accidents were investigated so lessons could be learned.
The main shortfall was staffing. Staff were not always deployed effectively, especially at mealtimes, and some people said they had to wait for help. The inspectors made a recommendation for the provider to review staffing arrangements.
The overall rating stayed Good because the ratings for the other key questions were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection in 2019. Those areas were not inspected during this visit.
Safe medicines
Medicines were given on time and as prescribed. Only trained and assessed staff administered them, and an external pharmacist was invited to audit medicines practice.
“Staff administered people's medicines on time and as prescribed.” from the report
Person-centred care
Inspectors found a warm atmosphere and said staff respected people's dignity, needs and preferences.
“There was a warm and welcoming atmosphere in the home. Staff treated people with dignity and respected people's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The manager investigated accidents and other incidents and identified actions intended to prevent them happening again.
“The registered manager carried out thorough investigations when things went wrong and identified actions to prevent the same incidents from happening again.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider had audits and checks in place. Managers met to review actions and improvements.
“The provider had implemented a programme of audits and checks to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Staff availability
needs fixingStaff were not always deployed effectively across the home, particularly at mealtimes. Some people said they sometimes had to wait for help, and inspectors recommended that staffing arrangements be reviewed.
“Staff were not always effectively deployed across the home to meet people's needs.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staff deployment since the inspection, especially at mealtimes?
- 02How do you check that people do not have to wait too long when they need help?
- 03How are agency staff given information about people's changing needs?
- 04What actions were identified through the quality audits, and have they all been completed?
- 05When will Effective, Caring and Responsive be reviewed again?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 September 2021 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 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.
The inspection took place on 11 February 2021 and was announced. It was a targeted visit looking at infection prevention and control in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The home was clean and had cleaning schedules. Staff used personal protective equipment. Visits were arranged in line with government guidance, including a separate room where people could meet relatives and friends safely.
Inspectors were assured about infection outbreaks, admissions, PPE, shielding, social distancing, testing, hygiene, visitors and the home's infection-control policy.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a full rating across all five areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was hygienically clean, with regular cleaning and schedules intended to reduce the spread of coronavirus.
“The service was hygienically clean. Cleaning schedules and regular cleaning helped make sure all areas of the service were cleaned to reduce the risk of people catching or spreading coronavirus.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used PPE to help protect themselves and the people living in the home.
“Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) to help keep them and the people they supported safe.” from the report
Safer visits
Visits followed government guidance, with a dedicated room for meeting relatives and friends safely.
“A 'visitor's room' had been set up to enable people to meet with relatives and friends in a safe way.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for admissions, testing, visitors, hygiene and its infection-control policy.
“We were assured the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up-to-date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection-control arrangements changed since the inspection on 11 February 2021?
- 02How do you currently arrange visits from relatives and friends?
- 03How do you test people living here and staff for infections?
- 04How do you make sure PPE is used safely and effectively?
- 05How do you manage new admissions and possible infection outbreaks?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe area; it did not assess the other four areas or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2021 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 Tudor House
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.