Spennymoor Care Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

At the time of the inspection, the home used an old care planning system called Standex which had been in use for many years and was limited in its ability to record sufficient details about the care people required. The current care plans also made reference to the previous CQC methodology which was no longer used.

Some information was missing from people’s care plans related to eating/drinking, skin integrity, communication and personal care. The provider acknowledged this information was missing and said they would be updated.

Care plans were reviewed each month by staff, although were not always updated to ensure they were reflective of people’s current needs. For example, one person’s skin care plan made reference to them having open skin tears due to a fall at home, although they had now lived at Spennymoor for over 2 years. Monthly reviews also did not show how people living in the home or their relatives were involved with this process.

However, people told us they felt the care was person centred and staff were responsive to their needs. One relative said, “Yes, it is very personal a lot more than [person] has experienced before.” A person living at the home said, “I need the family feeling, you get bucket loads of care.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There was a joined-up approach to ensure good care provision and the home worked well with other agencies. These included district nurses, GP’s and dieticians. Due to the limited information in care plans, this involvement was not always clearly recorded.

There was a process in place for when people first moved into the home. Initial assessments were completed, although were not signed by people who used the service, or their relatives to demonstrate involvement, despite there being the opportunity to.

There was a mixture of funding arrangements in place including self-funders and via the local authority. The home was not fully occupied at the time of the inspection and the provider was dealing with enquiries for new admissions.

The home had a regular staff team to help with continuity, and agency staff were not used. People’s key workers were displayed on a notice in their bedroom to ensure they knew who they were.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Each person had a communication care plan, although these did not always fully capture people’s needs regarding sight, hearing, speech and any aids that may be required.

The registered manager told us nobody living at the home currently came under the accessible information standard (AIS), although one person living at the home was registered blind and experienced blurred vision. At the time of the inspection, this person did not have access to information in different formats.

People were able to access information and express their views in numerous ways including at resident meetings and by raising complaints, however the last documented residents meeting was in December 2025.

People’s private and confidential information was not always stored securely. For example, care plans were stored in a cabinet in the dining room which wasn’t locked and had a steady flow of visitors in throughout the day. We reminded the provider about ensuring this cabinet was secured when not in use.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We received a mixed response from people and their relatives as to whether they felt involved and consulted with the care they received and their care plan. Although people’s care plans were reviewed each month by staff, people’s involvement and views were not clearly documented.

There was a complaints and compliments procedure in place, although this had not been reviewed since 2022. People and their relatives told us they had not needed to complain since living at the home.

Resident’s meetings took place and we saw topics of discussion included trips out, being happy with the care and menus. Surveys were also used to gather people’s views. People's families also left reviews about the home on www.carehome.co.uk.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access care and support when needed it and in response to any changes in their needs. One person said, “They are very good at getting a doctor and they come in every week. I have a podiatrist who comes in, the optician came in and I got new glasses.”

The home was accessible for people, with care being provided across 2 floors and bedrooms were accessed via either a staircase, or passenger lift. Grab rails were available for people with any mobility issues and wheelchairs could enter and exit the home through the main entrance.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider listened to people’s concerns regarding barriers to care when needed, including accessibility, communication, and cultural needs, although felt there were not any within the service currently.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time tomake informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Although nobody was receiving end of life care at the time of the assessment, the provider had arrangements in place if this were to change.

People had end of life care plans in place which provided information about things of importance, deterioration, culture/religion any advanced decisions and how people may like to spend their final days.

An end-of-life care policy and procedure was in place, although this needed to be updated. Staff had not received End of life care training. The provider told us they had arranged for this to be completed.