CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tynedale House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home had safe infection prevention and control procedures. They found arrangements for PPE, testing, visitors, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, with some further development suggested.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 1 December 2020. It was carried out as part of checks on care homes during the coronavirus pandemic and looked only at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting social distancing, managing visitors and admissions safely, and accessing testing for residents and staff. They also found extra cleaning, hand sanitiser, infection control training and quality checks in place.
The service and its Safe question were marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the inspection did not give a quality rating for the home. Inspectors said they had signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
Infection control training
Staff had completed infection prevention and control training, and the home received support from the local infection control nurse.
“Staff had completed infection prevention and control training (IPC). The service was supported by the local IPC nurse to ensure they were following local and national requirements.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
Extra cleaning tasks were added so that surfaces and frequently touched points were cleaned during the day.
“Additional cleaning tasks had been added to schedules to ensure touch points and surfaces were cleaned throughout the day.” from the report
Testing and quality checks
The home was part of the national testing programme and used audits to check infection control and identify improvements.
“Quality assurance audits were completed to ensure safe infection control practices were being followed and to identify any improvements.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
Arrangements allowed essential visitors to enter, with hand sanitiser and information provided at the home.
“Measures were in place to enable essential visitors to access the service.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorThe report does not identify a specific failure, but says the provider was signposted to resources to develop its infection control approach.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control improvements were made after the provider was signposted to further resources?
- 02How often are staff and residents currently tested for infections?
- 03How do you check that staff use protective equipment safely and correctly?
- 04How are essential visits managed now, and what infection control measures are used?
- 05How often are cleaning and infection control audits carried out, and what happens when they identify an improvement?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the home was inspected but not rated overall and no ratings were given for the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Tynedale House was rated Outstanding overall, with exceptionally caring, responsive and well-led support, and Good safety and effectiveness.
Inspectors visited on 4 and 9 December 2019 without announcing the visits. They observed care, spoke with relatives, staff and outside professionals, and reviewed care records and management information.
They found people were safe, with enough staff, safe recruitment, well-managed medicines and detailed risk plans. Staff were highly trained and worked closely with health and social care professionals.
The strongest findings were about kindness, dignity, choice and individual support. People were helped to enjoy activities, education, work-related roles and community links. The overall rating was Outstanding. Caring, Responsive and Well-led were Outstanding, while Safe and Effective were Good.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff showed compassion, understood people's individual needs and protected privacy and dignity. Relatives were very positive about the care.
“People received remarkable support from extremely compassionate staff, who knew them all exceptionally well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was adapted to people's needs, preferences and goals. Staff helped people try new experiences and achieve positive outcomes.
“People's choices and views were the foundation of creating a personalised plan of support to meet their needs and aspirations.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to enjoy hobbies, friendships, education, work-related activities and links with the local community.
“People enjoyed a range of pursuits, education and work-related activities which fulfilled them and promoted community inclusion and a sense of purpose and achievement.” from the report
Strong safety arrangements
The home had enough staff and thorough systems for managing risks, medicines, incidents and safeguarding concerns.
“There were thorough risk reduction measures in place to protect people's health, safety and well-being.” from the report
Effective leadership
Management had high standards and used audits, feedback and partnerships to improve the service.
“A solid governance structure was firmly embedded into the service to ensure people received a safe and high-quality service.” from the report
The home is larger than current best practice recommends
minorThe provider accepted that the home's size was not in line with current best practice for people with learning disabilities or autism. It had created smaller self-contained areas and made other changes to reduce the impact.
“Whilst the size of the home did not reflect a current best practice service model for accommodating people with a learning disability and/or autism, the provider had significantly invested in adaptations and refurbishments around the home to mitigate this.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, including the use of easy-read information, pictures, signs or technology?
- 02How would you adapt care if my relative's physical or mental health changed?
- 03How do the smaller living areas work in practice, and how would you decide which area would suit my relative?
- 04What activities, education, work-related roles and community opportunities could my relative take part in?
- 05How would you support my relative's wishes about future or end of life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care home, including accommodation and personal care, with all five key questions assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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 Tynedale House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 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.