Agenda item

Consideration was given to the latest quarterly summary regarding Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspections for services operating within the Borough (Appendix 1).  Six inspection reports were published during this period (April to June 2025 (inclusive)), with attention drawn to the following Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) contracted providers:

Providers rated ‘Good’ overall (5)

·       Churchview Nursing and Residential Home was upgraded to ‘Good’ overall, reflecting an upturn in the ‘Safe’, ‘Effective’ and ‘Well-Led’ domains which had previously been rated as ‘Requires Improvement’.  Similarly, Beechwood House was deemed ‘Good’ overall (and across all five domains) which represented progress on its previous inspection in 2022 when issues within the ‘Effective’ and ‘Well-Led’ domains led to it being rated ‘Requires Improvement’.  Piper Court was also upgraded to ‘Good’ overall (with all five domains judged ‘Good’) following ‘Safe’ and ‘Well-Led’ shortfalls identified during its last assessment (published in March 2023).

·       Wellburn House had maintained its overall ‘Good’ rating (all five domains deemed ‘Good’, with ‘Well-Led’ improving from ‘Requires Improvement’).

·       Tees Grange received a ‘Good’ overall judgement (with all five domains found to be ‘Good’) following its first rated CQC assessment.

The remaining report was in relation to a non-contracted provider.  Primary medical care service, The Densham Surgery had maintained its ‘Good’ overall rating, with all domains retaining this status apart from ‘Well-Led’ which was downgraded to ‘Requires Improvement’ (there were gaps in the overview of assurance and some processes were not always effective – one breach of regulation linked to governance was identified, with the CQC requesting an Action Plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment).

Although not part of this latest quarterly report, the Committee referenced recently released CQC reports on services overseen by T.L. Care Limited (Mandale Care Home and Ingleby Care Home) which had led to the regulator identifying a number of concerns.  Assurance was given that relevant SBC officers met with the management of these services on a bi-monthly basis, and pointed to a very recent CQC inspection of The Beeches Care Home (also overseen by T.L. Care Limited) which had been positive (though was yet to be published), as well as discussions regarding investment in the décor of the homes under the provider’s umbrella.  Confidence was expressed that the right people were in place, though it was acknowledged that assurances had been received in the past which had not then been actioned.  Responding to further Member queries on any common issues being identified across T.L. Care Limited settings, SBC officers noted challenges around recruitment and retention of good management (along with the support given to them from above) – however, development plans were in place with the three existing managers (who did feel supported), one of whom had enrolled onto the SBC Well-Led Programme (of the other two managers, one had already completed this, with the other already having a management qualification and a wealth of experience).  SBC officers had received assurance from the providers’ Area Manager that individual service managers were not being swapped around in an effort to improve a failing setting at the expense of another.

Focus turned to the section on Provider Assessment and Market Management Solutions (PAMMS) inspections (Appendix 2), of which there was one report published during this period (April to June 2025 (inclusive)):

·       Park House Rest Home maintained an overall rating of ‘Excellent’, with all five PAMMS domains being deemed as such (‘Quality of Management’ upgraded from ‘Good’).

Referring to the last CQC report on Park House Rest Home (published in August 2018), the Committee queried if it was common for the regulator not to inspect a provider for over seven years.  SBC officers stated that, in recent years, the CQC had not tended to prioritise those services with a previous ‘Good’ or above rating (though telephone checks did take place) – in contrast, PAMMS inspections were undertaken on an annual basis.  In response, Members asked if CQC guidelines remained effective, with SBC officers noting the ongoing restructuring of the health and social care regulator and its inspection regime.  From a PAMMS perspective, inspections were geared towards the Council’s contract expectations.

In more general matters, the Committee questioned if there was a staff-to-resident ratio guide that services should be following.  SBC officers drew attention to the dependency tool which was used to ensure the appropriate level of resource was in place to meet the needs of those within a particular setting.

Finally, a query was raised around the scheduling of PAMMS inspections, with a much smaller number of reports published during the first half of the year (April to September) compared to the second half (October to March).  SBC officers stated that the inspection cycle had evolved over time and that visits had to be scheduled outside of traditional periods of annual leave.  It was also noted that initial findings were shared with providers who had two weeks to comment before a report was finalised and shared more widely.

AGREED that the CQC / PAMMS Inspection Results – Quarterly Summary (Q1 2025-2026) report be noted.