CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Berkeley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicine guidance for medicines given only when needed was not always clear. Risk assessments and care plans did not always record known risks effectively, and staffing feedback was mixed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed or rated in this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed or rated in this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed or rated in this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective systems for checking quality and safety, reviewing incidents and recording improvement actions. Staff had meetings and supervision, and the manager worked with other agencies.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care requires improvement because medicine guidance and risk records were not always clear.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 28 July 2022. Inspectors reviewed the safe and well-led areas only. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for safe care. Medicines were stored and given safely, but guidance for medicines given only when needed was not always clear. Care plans did not always record known risks for staff to follow. Staffing feedback was mixed, and extra staff were put in place while needs were reviewed.
The home was rated Good for being well-led. Inspectors found effective checks on quality and safety, regular reviews of accidents and incidents, and evidence that managers worked with other agencies. People said they felt safe and well looked after, and infection control arrangements were satisfactory.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection published on 13 August 2019. The safe rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement, while the well-led rating remained Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe in the home and with staff. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and knew how to raise concerns.
“People told us they felt safe living in the home and with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Safe medicine handling
Medicines were received, stored and administered safely. Records and stock quantities were up to date, and staff had medicine training and competency checks.
“Medicines were safely received, stored and administered. Records seen were up to date and quantities of medicines stocked were correct.” from the report
Management checks
The home had regular audits and monitoring for areas including care plans, medicines and infection control. Action plans recorded what needed to be done and who was responsible.
“An effective system was consistently operated to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Clean and infection-aware
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection prevention and control arrangements, including cleaning, PPE, testing and visiting arrangements.
“The home was clean and tidy and additional cleaning ensured people were safe from the risk of infection.” from the report
Medicine instructions
needs fixingInstructions for medicines given only when needed did not always tell staff clearly when they should be given. Inspectors recommended that these protocols be reviewed.
“Where people were prescribed medicines, on an 'as required' basis, clear guidance was not always in place to ensure staff had information about when these medicines should be given.” from the report
Risk records
needs fixingKnown risks linked to people's care and needs were not always recorded properly in care plans and risk assessments. Inspectors recommended a review.
“Risks associated with people's care and identified needs had not always been recorded effectively.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingPeople and staff gave mixed feedback about whether there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The provider added staff immediately while it reviewed people's needs.
“We received mixed feedback from people and staff in relation to appropriate staffing levels to meet people's needs.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to guidance for medicines given only when needed, and how do you check staff follow it?
- 02Have all residents' care plans and risk assessments been reviewed since the inspection? Can you give an example of a change made?
- 03What did the review of staffing needs find, and are the additional staff still in place?
- 04How do your audits check that medicine records and risk assessments remain accurate?
- 05What are the current ratings for effective, caring and responsive care, given that these areas were not covered by this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed or rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 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, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 8 and 9 July 2019. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines processes, clean surroundings and care that respected people's choices, dignity and independence.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement. The provider had made an action plan, and inspectors found enough improvement for the home no longer to be in breach of the regulations previously identified.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. People said they were not rushed and that staff responded quickly when help was needed.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and listened to them. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence during personal care and daily life.
“Staff supported people to maintain their privacy, dignity and independence, and respected their choices.” from the report
Improved care planning
Care plans had improved and gave staff clearer guidance about how people wanted to be supported. Staff were said to know people well.
“There had been improvement in the quality of care plans and information contained in them.” from the report
Good involvement
People and relatives were asked for their views about care and how money should be spent. The home displayed results showing what it had done in response.
“These showed people were involved in making suggestions and would be listened to.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home used regular audits, meetings and reviews to identify shortfalls and track actions. Accidents and incidents were analysed so lessons could be learned.
“The provider's quality monitoring system had improved.” from the report
Dementia care approaches
needs fixingOne relative had seen different approaches when staff supported people living with dementia. Some were very good, while others needed more practice.
“Some approaches were described as very good and others required more practice.” from the report
Activities and entertainment
minorPeople enjoyed the activities but said they would like more visiting entertainers. This was raised with the registered manager.
“People told us they enjoyed the activities available and said they would like to have more visiting entertainers.” from the report
Accessible newsletters
minorInspectors said newsletters could be brighter and more colourful, with pictorial information. This was mentioned to the registered manager to address.
“These could be made brighter and more colourful and include pictorial information.” from the report
- 01What further training or support have staff had in using different approaches with people living with dementia?
- 02What changes have been made in response to requests for more visiting entertainers?
- 03Have the newsletters been made brighter and more accessible, including pictorial information?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs, preferences or behaviour change?
- 05How will you show us that the improvements from the previous inspection have been maintained?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 August 2019 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 Berkeley House
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2010.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Kingston upon Hull, City of
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 £1,020 to £1,350 a week. 12 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.