CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Yarningdale
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home managed infection risks, including visiting, cleaning, PPE, testing, admissions and outbreaks. The provider also had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors observed staff spending time with people and supporting contact with relatives.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 review.
The inspection took place on 18 January 2022 and was announced 24 hours beforehand. It was a targeted review of infection prevention and control, including the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
Inspectors found clear visiting rules, regular cleaning and correct use of personal protective equipment. They were assured that the home was managing testing, admissions, outbreaks, social distancing and infection risks safely.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a rating for the five usual questions.
Visiting arrangements
The home had clear rules for visitors, including PPE, testing and health screening.
“The service had clear visiting protocols in place with robust infection, control and prevention procedures that all visitors were required to follow.” from the report
Cleaning
The home was cleaned regularly throughout the day and night, including frequently touched areas.
“The service was regularly cleaned throughout the day and night.” from the report
Support and contact
Staff had time to talk with people, support their chosen activities and help them stay in touch with relatives and friends.
“Staff had time to spend with people talking and supporting them with activities of their choice.” from the report
PPE and infection training
Staff had infection prevention training and were observed wearing the correct PPE during the inspection.
“We observed staff to be wearing the correct Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) throughout our inspection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How do you currently manage visiting, testing and PPE requirements?
- 03How do you make sure staffing pressures do not affect people's care and support?
- 04How do you support residents to keep in contact with their relatives and friends?
- 05When was the home last given a full CQC assessment covering all five questions?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not rate the other quality questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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, October 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and strong infection control, but some monitoring and medicines records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 9 September 2021. The inspection followed concerns about infection control and looked mainly at Safe and Well-led.
Inspectors spoke with people, staff and relatives. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and the home's quality checks. They found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient and infection control measures were being followed.
The home had systems for checking quality and acting on problems. Inspectors found some records needed updating, including monitoring charts and one person's care records. The overall rating was Good, as were Safe and Well-led. Ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Protection from harm
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns. Safeguarding incidents had been reviewed and dealt with appropriately.
“People were protected from harm and abuse. Staff had received training in this area and understood how to report any concerns to the registered manager, provider and relevant professionals.” from the report
Infection control
Staff understood how to manage COVID-19 risks and inspectors saw them using the correct protective equipment. Cleaning records showed that high-touch areas were cleaned regularly.
“We observed staff to be wearing the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout our inspection.” from the report
Person-centred care
People were involved in planning their care. The home also gave people opportunities to suggest improvements, and people said their suggestions had been acted on.
“The service provided a person-centred culture. People were involved in their care planning and detailed plans had been developed for staff to follow.” from the report
Management checks
The management team used daily walk rounds, meetings and audits to check that the home was running safely and to identify improvements.
“The registered manager had a quality assurance system in place which ensured all aspects of the service were audited and improvements were made where required.” from the report
Care records needed updating
needs fixingOne person's records did not yet reflect a recent change in their needs. The manager had identified this and had a plan to update the records.
“One person's records needed updating to reflect their recent change in need.” from the report
Monitoring charts had gaps
needs fixingAn audit found gaps in fluid charts and mattress pressure recording charts. An action plan had been put in place to address this.
“The provider had recently completed an audit which identified gaps in fluid chart and mattress pressure recording charts.” from the report
Medicines counts needed improvement
needs fixingThe manager had identified errors in medicine counts and introduced a system to reduce the chance of them happening again. Inspectors still found that medicines were administered safely and according to prescriptions.
“The registered manager had identified errors with the medicine counts and had put a system in place to reduce the reoccurrence of this.” from the report
- 01Have the gaps in fluid charts and mattress pressure recording charts now been fully corrected?
- 02How do you check that care records are updated promptly when a person's needs change?
- 03What caused the medicine count errors, and how do you know the new system is working?
- 04What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas next be fully inspected?
- 05How can residents and relatives give feedback or suggest improvements?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 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 Yarningdale
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 April 2012.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.