Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Prestwick Care

Addison Court

Wesley Grove, Crawcrook, Ryton, NE40 4EP

Goodpublished 23 May 2025, 15 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, May 2024

Addison Court was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety and leadership failures.

This was an unannounced inspection over four days. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, audits and other safety documents. They also observed care.

The home was not consistently safe. Safeguarding concerns were not always investigated properly. Risks, falls and medicines were not managed reliably. Recruitment checks were incomplete, and some agency staff did not know people's needs well enough.

Inspectors also found shortfalls in care planning, mealtime support, involvement in care, complaints handling and management oversight. There were some positives, including good infection control, access to healthcare and staff who spoke positively about the people they supported.

The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 27 October 2022, to Inadequate. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Requires Improvement.

What inspectors praised
  • Infection control

    Inspectors found that staff used protective equipment correctly and followed good hygiene practices.

    People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were following safe infection prevention and control (IPC) practices.from the report
  • Access to healthcare

    People were referred to healthcare professionals when needed, and health professionals visited the home regularly.

    People were supported to access healthcare services and support. Care records showed people had been referred to external health care professionals when needed.from the report
  • Choice and legal safeguards

    Inspectors found that the home followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and had appropriate authorisations where needed.

    We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.from the report
  • Positive staff views

    Staff spoke positively about the people they supported and said the care was good enough for their family or friends.

    Staff spoke positively about the people they supported. They told us the care at the home was good enough for their family or friends.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Safeguarding concerns

    serious

    Some allegations of abuse were not investigated impartially or followed by robust action. The safeguarding log did not contain all incidents, actions, outcomes or lessons learnt.

    People were not always safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.from the report
  • Medicines safety

    serious

    Records did not show reliably that medicines were given as prescribed. Inspectors found unexplained missed doses, including one critical Parkinson's medicine, and weaknesses in records for creams and as-required medicines.

    Medicines were not safely managed. Records did not assure us that oral medicines were administered as prescribed.from the report
  • Recruitment checks

    serious

    Some staff files did not contain suitable references, complete work or education histories, or verified references. The report says some agency staff had not been safely recruited.

    The provider did not operate safe recruitment processes.from the report
  • Weak management oversight

    serious

    Audits and incident reviews did not reliably identify trends, investigate problems or ensure action was taken. Care records and handovers were also sometimes incomplete or inaccurate.

    The provider's quality monitoring systems had not been used effectively to ensure improvements were identified and acted on quickly.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What immediate changes have been made to ensure all safeguarding concerns are investigated properly and recorded with actions, outcomes and lessons learnt?
  2. 02How are you checking that every medicine, including Parkinson's medicines, creams and as-required medicines, is given and recorded correctly?
  3. 03What recruitment checks have now been completed for permanent and agency staff, and how do you make sure agency staff understand each person's needs before starting a shift?
  4. 04How are care plans and care reviews being kept up to date, and how are relatives involved in them?
  5. 05What changes have been made to audits, handovers and complaints handling so that problems are identified, answered and followed through?

This was an unannounced full inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided; all five ratings were reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 May 2024 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Addison Court

7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.

  1. May 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Addison Court

  2. October 2022Good
    Safe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. February 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. September 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2019Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. January 2018Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. May 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. January 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. October 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. November 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. September 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. August 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  15. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  16. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  17. September 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  18. May 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  19. September 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  20. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Malhotra Care Homes Limited

10 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Abbey Court

Newcastle upon Tyne, NE3
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

Bay View House

Whitley Bay, NE26
Not yet rated
NursingDementia
Not yet ratedcare home

Bede House

Sunderland, SR2
Outstanding
NursingDementia
Rated 10 months agocare home

Covent House

Gateshead, DH3
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 10 months agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Ryton

Ryton Towers

Ryton, NE40 · 2.3 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home

Red Brick House

Prudhoe, NE42 · 3.6 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 10 months agocare home

Rosewood Villa

Newcastle upon Tyne, NE15 · 3.9 km
Good
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home