CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tyne House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. They noted some staff needed reminders about mask use, and that specialist mattresses were not fully recorded or monitored at first.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear roles, regular audits, a development plan and additional management support. Some completed actions had not always been signed off, and communication was identified as an area for improvement.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Moor View rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred support and improvements since the previous inspection, with a few records and infection-control issues to tighten.
The home provides residential care for up to 13 people with learning or physical disabilities, or autistic people. There were 12 people living there during the inspection. Inspectors visited on 20 and 27 October 2022, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe and Well-led both rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and staff who understood people's needs. People were supported to make choices, take part in activities, maintain relationships and access the community.
This was a focused inspection to check improvements after the previous inspection found breaches and rated the service Requires Improvement. The home was no longer in breach. Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating.
Person-centred support
People were supported to make daily choices, follow their interests, build relationships and take part in community activities. Staff understood people's individual needs and goals.
“People were supported to make choices in their daily lives and were supported to do things they enjoyed.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff had their medicines skills checked regularly, and the home followed guidance to avoid excessive use of medicines to control behaviour.
“Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff knew people well, understood how to recognise and report abuse, and worked with other agencies when concerns arose. Incidents were recorded and reported.
“People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its quality monitoring and was no longer in breach of regulations. New management roles provided extra support to the registered manager and staff.
“The provider had further developed their overall management team to include a deputy, a new quality assurance manager and a new regional head of operations.” from the report
Mask use
minorInspectors were only somewhat assured that personal protective equipment was always used correctly. Some staff touched masks without cleaning their hands, and one wore a mask incorrectly.
“Staff sometimes touched masks without washing or gelling their hands.” from the report
Specialist mattress records
needs fixingSpecialist mattresses used for skin care were not recorded in care plans or fully monitored to show they remained at the correct setting. The manager addressed this immediately.
“Special mattresses to support people's skin care, were not recorded in care plans or fully monitored to ensure they remained at the correct setting.” from the report
Quality checks
minorSome issues identified through audits had not been signed off after they were completed. The management team had begun to address this.
“Some issues identified had not always been signed off once completed.” from the report
Staffing and communication
minorThe home had difficulty filling vacant posts because of a shortage of suitable applicants and sometimes used agency or bank staff. Staff, relatives and health professionals also said communication could be improved.
“Communication was mentioned by staff, relatives and healthcare professionals as an area to enhance.” from the report
- 01How are you making sure all staff use masks and other infection-control equipment correctly?
- 02How are specialist mattresses recorded, checked and monitored for the people who need them?
- 03How often are agency or bank staff used, and how do you make sure they know each person's needs and routines?
- 04What changes have you made to improve communication with relatives, staff and health professionals?
- 05How do managers confirm that actions identified in audits have been completed and signed off?
This was an announced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 December 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, July 2021
Tyne House is Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found weaknesses in records and management, although people had enough staff and were treated with dignity.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 and 29 April 2021. It started as a targeted check of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, then widened to look at Safe and Well-led after inspectors found record-keeping issues.
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs, and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities. Risks to people and the building had been assessed. However, medicine records were not always accurate, one safeguarding incident had not been reported promptly, and one recruitment file was incomplete.
The home was not always well managed. Its audits did not identify important problems, some improvement actions were unclear, one policy was out of date, and there was no manager registered with the CQC. Inspectors also found that communication with relatives could be frustrating.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other three CQC questions were not assessed in this inspection. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 23 August 2018.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. They also observed positive engagement between people and staff.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet the needs of people.” from the report
People's voice
People could share their views through house meetings and communication systems. Staff had training to communicate effectively with people.
“People were empowered to share their views about the service.” from the report
Risk checks
Personal risk assessments were in place, with measures recorded to reduce known risks. Safety checks had also been completed on the building.
“Personalised risk assessments were in place for people.” from the report
Activities and happiness
People told inspectors they were happy living at the home. Staff supported them to take part in activities that mattered to them.
“People told us they were happy living at the service.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousMedicine administration and stock records were not always completed accurately. The report found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, but this contributed to the governance breach.
“Medicine administration records [MAR] had not always been accurately maintained.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
seriousOne incident had not been reported to the local authority safeguarding team. The manager reported it retrospectively after inspectors raised it.
“We identified one incident which had not been reported to the local authority safeguarding team.” from the report
Quality monitoring
seriousAudits failed to identify problems with records, training information and policies. The provider's monitoring systems were not robust enough to drive improvement.
“The provider did not have robust systems in place to effectively monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingOne staff file did not show that the person's full employment history and career gaps had been checked. Agency staff were also being used while permanent staff were recruited.
“One staff file where the candidate's full employment history and any gaps in their career had not been checked.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingOne relative said communication was frustrating, although they were happy with the care and appreciated some staff. Families should check how relatives are kept informed.
“In general communication is an issue that is frustrating.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure medicine administration records and stock counts are accurate every time?
- 02How are safeguarding incidents now checked and reported to the local authority?
- 03What action has been taken to improve quality audits and make sure they identify problems and record clear actions?
- 04Is there now a manager registered with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home while this is being resolved?
- 05How much agency staff is currently being used, and how will you provide continuity for my relative?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, following a targeted coronavirus infection-control inspection; the Effective, Caring and Responsive questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 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 Tyne House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
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 £1,160 a week. 30 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.