CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bleak House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report mentions audits covering medication, health and safety, housekeeping, people's finances, care records and bed rails, but gives no rating for Safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report mentions staff training and work with health professionals, but gives no rating for Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report describes a positive, person-centred culture, but gives no rating for Caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report describes activities, choice and opportunities in the local community, but gives no rating for Responsive.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, effective quality checks, regular staff meetings and good engagement with people using the home. The manager understood their legal responsibilities and had corrected the previous display-of-rating problem.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Good; this focused inspection found good leadership and that a previous breach about displaying the rating had been fixed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 April 2018. One inspector spoke with eight people, the registered manager, two care staff and a visiting healthcare professional. They also checked records, audits, questionnaires, staff meetings and supervision.
The inspection looked only at whether the home was well-led. Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture. People were supported to make choices, build skills and take part in activities in the local community. People and staff spoke positively about the management.
The home had systems to check the quality and safety of care. The manager understood when significant events had to be reported to CQC. A previous breach about displaying the home's rating had been fixed. The home was rated Good overall and Good for well-led, but this report does not reassess the other four areas.
Positive leadership
People and staff spoke positively about the management. Inspectors found the culture welcoming and focused on people's choices and outcomes.
“There was a positive person centred culture at the service.” from the report
Quality checks
The home used audits, questionnaires and meetings to monitor care and gather people's views.
“Effective systems were in place to monitor and review the quality of the service.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to learn new skills and take part in activities and opportunities in the local community.
“People living at the service were encouraged to develop new skills and experience different opportunities.” from the report
Working with other professionals
The manager worked with health and social care professionals, including a dietician, physiotherapist, advocates and speech and language specialists.
“The registered manager worked with external organisations to promote peoples wellbeing and ensure people received good quality care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What changes have been made since the previous breach about displaying the home's CQC rating?
- 02How do audits of medication, care records, health and safety and finances lead to improvements?
- 03How are people's views from meetings and questionnaires used to change activities or care?
- 04How do staff share learning from communication training with the whole staff team?
- 05How will you support my relative to develop skills, make choices and take part in local activities?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Well-led only; the report does not reassess Safe, Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 2018 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, July 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the well-led rating was Requires Improvement because the inspection rating was missing from the website.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 22 June 2017. One inspector spoke with six people living at the home, three staff, the manager and two volunteers. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff rotas and training records, and toured the premises.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, effective, caring and responsive care were all rated Good. Inspectors found people received their medicines safely, had enough staff, received person-centred support and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The provider had not displayed the previous CQC rating on its website, which was a breach of Regulation 20A. Inspectors also found that quality monitoring systems had improved since the previous inspection.
At the previous inspection in May 2016, the home was rated Requires Improvement and breached safe care and treatment rules. Inspectors found those safety problems had been addressed at this inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals. Inspectors saw relaxed, polite and friendly interactions, with privacy and dignity respected.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's communication, routines, health, activities and preferences. Staff used pictures, symbols and adapted sign language where needed.
“We saw staff provided people with person-centred care.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose when to get up and go to bed, where to spend time and which activities to join. Activities included crafts, painting, photography and outings.
“People had access to a range of activities both within the service and in the local community.” from the report
Improved safety and monitoring
The home had made improvements to bathrooms, toilets and furnishings. Quality checks and audits had also improved since the previous inspection.
“Since the last inspection we could see the changes that had been implemented to improve the quality assurance system, which we saw involved a range of audits.” from the report
Rating missing from website
seriousThe provider had not displayed the previous CQC rating on its website. This was a legal breach and led to the Requires Improvement rating for well-led.
“The provider failed to display their inspection rating on the service website following their CQC inspection in May 2016.” from the report
One staff file incomplete
minorOne of the four staff files checked did not contain references. The manager said these would be located and sent to CQC after the inspection.
“with the exception of one member of staff that did not have any references in place.” from the report
- 01Has the current CQC rating now been displayed on the provider's website, and how do you check that this remains up to date?
- 02Was the missing reference for the staff member found and added to the staff record?
- 03How are the monthly audits used to identify and fix problems in medicines, safety and care records?
- 04How many staff are on duty during the day and night, and how is cover arranged when staff are absent?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with records, medicines, staffing, premises and interactions reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 July 2017 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 Bleak House
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 November 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“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.