CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dales House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse. Risks, staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and the building were managed appropriately.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed to care for people. People received appropriate healthcare, diets and support with their individual needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and attentive. People had positive relationships with staff and were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was exceptionally tailored to people's needs, preferences and goals. People were supported to develop independence, maintain relationships and take part in a wide range of activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team promoted a positive, person-centred culture and used quality checks, feedback and partnership working to improve the service. One medicines audit did not identify missing guidance for specific medicines.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found exceptionally personalised, kind care, but medicine guidance was not fully identified by audits.
Inspectors made unannounced visits on 5 and 12 December 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff, managers and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care files, medicine records, staff files and other records.
The home supported seven adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by trained staff. People were helped to make choices, stay independent, access healthcare and take part in activities in the community.
Responsive care was rated Outstanding. The other four areas were rated Good. The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection published on 6 June 2017.
Highly personalised care
Care plans included detailed information about people's preferences, goals, routines and life experiences. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“Care plans were extremely detailed and included people's likes, dislikes, goals, thorough routines and lived experiences, which supported staff to provide extremely personalised care, meeting people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, manage parts of their own lives and pursue personal goals. Staff encouraged independence rather than doing everything for people.
“People were empowered to live their lives in the way they wanted.” from the report
Community activities
People took part in activities and new experiences that matched their interests. Staff supported them to use local facilities, attend events and maintain relationships.
“People led fulfilling lives through taking part in activities and new experiences.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found positive relationships between people and staff. People were treated with dignity and respect and their choices were valued.
“People were happy with the care provided as staff were kind, caring, attentive and respectful.” from the report
Medicine guidance
needs fixingThe medicine audit did not identify that guidance was missing for some specific medicines. Families should ask how this has been corrected and how staff are given the right instructions.
“However, the medicine audit had not identified the lack of guidance for specific medicines.” from the report
- 01Which specific medicines lacked guidance at the inspection, and what has been done to correct this?
- 02How would you support my relative to set and achieve their own goals and maintain independence?
- 03How would staff communicate with my relative if they use a particular communication method or need information in an accessible format?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative based on their interests?
- 05How would my relative and our family be involved in reviewing their care plan and making decisions?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the accommodation and personal care provided by the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 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, June 2017
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsiveness and kind, personalised care; inspectors found only minor medicine guidance to improve.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 5 May 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training, staffing, complaints, audits and the building.
The home was judged Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Good. Responsive was rated Outstanding because care was highly personalised, staff understood people's complex needs and supported them to take part in activities and community life.
People were found to be safe, with enough staff, suitable safeguarding arrangements and medicines given as prescribed. Health and nutritional needs were met, staff were kind and respectful, and records showed good support for choice, dignity and independence.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in April 2015 and remained Good at this inspection. Inspectors noted that earlier minor issues with recruitment checks and flushing unused water outlets had been addressed. They told the manager that guidance for medicines given when needed could be more detailed.
Highly personalised support
Care plans were individual, clear and kept under review. Staff knew people's needs, preferences, communication and triggers very well.
“We reviewed the care records for five people and found them to be very person-centred.” from the report
Better quality of life
Staff helped people build confidence, learn new skills and take part in activities that mattered to them, including education and community trips.
“We saw staff had made a significant impact on the quality of life for people who used the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed a caring approach. Relatives and people using the service also spoke positively about how staff treated them.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported them in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Good safety arrangements
There were enough staff, safe recruitment checks, safeguarding procedures and checks on the environment and equipment.
“Rotas showed us there was sufficient staff on duty at all times to meet the needs of people who used the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What changes have been made to the guidance for medicines given when needed since this inspection?
- 02How do staff make sure people's care plans are updated quickly when their needs change?
- 03How would you support my relative to take part in activities and community life that match their interests?
- 04How are people and families involved in reviewing care plans and making decisions?
- 05How do you check that staffing levels provide the one-to-one support set out in care plans?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, including observations, discussions and checks of care, medicine, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 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 Dales House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 October 2014.
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.