Rated Care Homes

Tyne House

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    Its last inspection improved it from Requires improvement to Good.

  • 4 years

    since the latest rating was published. A rating this old may not show how the service is today.

  • 51 of 62

    rated care homes in Newcastle upon Tyne are rated Good, like this one.

Tyne House: inspection record

Care home, 7 beds, Newcastle upon Tyne

Rated Good in December 2022, up from Requires improvement.

Tyne House: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

About the service

From the Care Quality Commission's inspection report published 8 December 2022. Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Moor View is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 13 people. The service provides support to people with learning or physical disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people using the service.

What inspectors found

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.

Read the rest of CQC's summary

The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture.

Right support: People were supported to make choices in their daily lives and were supported to do things they enjoyed. People were engaged in varied activities of their interest, including activities to enhance their skills and learning.

People were supported to maintain family links and helped to grow friendships. People were encouraged to be part of the community. Staff had a good understanding of people's individual needs and encouraged them to reach their goals.

There were enough staff to support people in a person-centred way. Each person had a key worker dedicated to their care and support. The national shortage in suitable applicants to fill vacant posts had impacted on the services ability to fill shifts. However, agency staff had been used to do this in the interim as they continued to recruit.

Risk was monitored and assessed. People received medicines safely and staff ensured this continued when away from the home. The provider updated records during inspection to further enhance procedures. The provider followed infection control guidance, including when visitors attended the home. A small number of staff needed to be reminded about mask wearing procedures.

Right care: Personalised support plans were in place to help staff support people's needs in the way they chose. Personal care was provided in a thoughtful and dignified manner. After feedback some records were enhanced.

Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. The service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Right culture: The service operated with openness. When something went wrong, they worked with other professionals and families to put things right. Staff ensured risks of a closed culture were minimised so that people received support based on transparency, respect and inclusivity.

The needs and safety of people form the basis of the culture at the service. Staff understand their role in making sure that people are always put first. Staff talked positively about the role they undertook and consistently strived to deliver person centred care. People were empowered to live their best lives possible and were valued as individuals.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. The last rating is 4 years old. Ask what has changed since then.
  2. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  3. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Laura Cook
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, Physical Disability

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

9 inspection reports, latest 8 December 2022. The reports are on the Care Quality Commission website.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
01855026 (opens Companies House)
Charity number
515943

The Percy Hedley Foundation runs 3 services, all in the North East. 3 are rated Good or Outstanding.

Other services run by The Percy Hedley Foundation

  1. G
    Leybourne Good. Care home, North Tyneside
  2. G
    Wansbeck House Good. Care home, Newcastle upon Tyne

Getting help from Newcastle City Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Tyne House provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Tyne House as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Tyne House have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 7 beds at Tyne House.
When was Tyne House last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Tyne House was published on 8 December 2022.
Who runs Tyne House?
Tyne House is run by The Percy Hedley Foundation. It runs 3 services, all in the North East.
What is Tyne House's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 8 December 2022.