CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Calvert Trust Kielder
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, safeguarding systems were in place, staffing levels were sufficient and medicines were managed safely. The home was clean and equipment and fire safety were checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before their stay and staff received training linked to individual needs. Inspectors found good support with food, healthcare, independence and decision-making, although some kitchen storage and lasting power of attorney paperwork needed attention.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected privacy and dignity, offered choices and supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, and communication needs were recorded. People could choose activities, keep in touch with family and use a wide range of adapted outdoor pursuits.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found supportive management, regular checks on quality and safety, staff training and partnership working. Some documents had no date, and one incident notification had been sent late.
What inspectors found, May 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred short-break care, with some minor paperwork issues.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection. The inspector visited on 9 and 30 March 2020, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine and management records. The inspection was partly hindered by the coronavirus outbreak, so some information was gathered afterwards.
The home provides short stays for up to 20 people with health or physical disabilities, including learning disabilities. Six people were staying when inspectors visited. People usually stay for one or two weeks and can take part in adapted outdoor activities.
Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found people were safe, treated kindly, supported to make choices and helped to take part in activities. They also found good staffing, training, medicines management and links with health professionals.
There were some minor issues. A few records needed updating or dating, some opened food was not labelled, and one incident notification was sent late. The management team said these points would be addressed, and the late notification was dealt with outside the inspection process.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and well looked after. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to protect people from abuse.
“People told us they were safe and well looked after by staff.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines brought in for short stays were checked and managed safely. People could also be supported to take their own medicines.
“Medicines were managed and administered safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors found warm interactions and respect for privacy, dignity and individual choices.
“People told us staff were kind and caring towards them.” from the report
Choice and independence
The home supported people to choose their daily activities and to try activities they might not be able to do elsewhere. Equipment helped people take part as independently as possible.
“The service focused on enabling people to participate in activities they may not be able to undertake elsewhere.” from the report
Good activity programme
People had access to a wide range of adapted outdoor activities, as well as evening activities and opportunities to make friends.
“A range of outdoor pursuits were on offer in this unique service.” from the report
Some records needed updating
minorInspectors found a small number of documents without dates. Care records, lasting power of attorney paperwork and records about wishes after a sudden death were also being reviewed or updated.
“A small number of documents had no date entered.” from the report
Minor kitchen storage issue
minorSome food in the kitchen had not been labelled after opening. The home said this was addressed immediately.
“We found some minor issues with storage in the kitchen area, including some foods not labelled after opening.” from the report
Late incident notification
needs fixingOne notification about an incident was sent late. The management team described this as an oversight and said it would not happen again.
“One notification of an incident had been sent in late.” from the report
- 01How will you update my relative's care plan when they return for another short stay?
- 02How will you make sure all medicines brought from home are checked and any dosage discrepancies are resolved?
- 03What records will you update about lasting power of attorney and a person's wishes if there is a sudden death?
- 04What activities and communication equipment can you provide for my relative's particular needs?
- 05What steps have you taken to prevent incident notifications being sent late?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the inspection was hindered by the coronavirus outbreak and that some information was collected afterwards. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 2020 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some care records needed updating.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 March and 5 April 2017. Inspectors spoke with all six people staying there, five relatives or carers, staff and health professionals. They observed care and activities and checked care, medicines, staffing, safety and management records.
The home provides short residential respite stays, usually for one or two weeks, with adventure activities for people with physical and learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people felt safe and received kind, respectful care. Staff supported people with their health needs, meals, medicines and activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the home meeting the expected standards at the time of the visit. Inspectors also noted that some care plans and risk information were being reviewed because records were not always complete or up to date.
Improved medicines safety
The previous inspection found a medicines breach. At this inspection, medicines were stored, given and disposed of correctly, and only trained staff administered them.
“Medicines were managed safely. Only trained staff administered medicines. People confirmed they received their medicines at the correct time.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as caring and considerate. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy, support communication and help people remain independent.
“Staff treated people with respect. We saw they knocked on bedroom doors and waited to be invited in before entering the room.” from the report
Safe activities
Staff assessed risks linked to activities and used specialist equipment and safety measures. The home adapted activities so people with different disabilities could take part.
“We viewed activity risk assessments which had been put in place to ensure that all possible foreseeable risk had been captured and mitigated.” from the report
Good staff training
Training, supervision and appraisals were up to date. Staff received additional training when people had specific healthcare needs, such as PEG feeding.
“Training records confirmed these staff training areas were up to date.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose their activities, food and how staff supported them. The home offered outdoor activities as well as indoor options and quieter ways to spend time.
“There was an extensive range of activities for people to participate in.” from the report
Care records needed updating
needs fixingInspectors found some gaps in how care information was recorded and reviewed. The home had started a full review, but this work was not yet complete during the inspection.
“We found that care plans and risk assessments were completed and new documentation was about to be rolled out, however, we did find some gaps in recording and review of information.” from the report
Policies were being reviewed
minorThe provider was updating most policies and procedures, including the medicines policy. Ask whether the relevant policies for your relative's care have now been completed.
“The provider confirmed that they were in the process of updating the majority of their policies and procedures after purchasing a system from a health and social care consultancy company.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's care plan and risk assessments are complete and up to date before their stay?
- 02What training will the staff supporting my relative's specific healthcare needs have, and who will provide it?
- 03How will you manage and record my relative's medicines when they are away from the main building on activities?
- 04Which activities can my relative safely take part in, and what specialist equipment or staff support will be available?
- 05How will you support my relative's communication, personal care preferences and independence during the stay?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and it also followed up the previous medicines breach and a safeguarding concern whose investigation was not yet complete. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 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 Calvert Trust Kielder
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.