CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dalkeith
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some medicines, cleanliness and record-keeping checks needing attention.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 2 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, suitable staff training, support with food and healthcare, and activities that reflected people's interests.
Inspectors identified some improvements needed. Medicines competency checks and medicine storage temperatures were not initially recorded. Some areas were not clean, and some care details had not yet been transferred to the electronic records. The home took action during the inspection on the cleanliness, radiators and medicine storage.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people sensitively and respected their choices.
“People received care that was kind, thoughtful and respectful.” from the report
Safe recruitment and training
Staff recruitment checks were completed, including employment history checks and DBS checks. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“Staff were safely recruited and had received sufficient training to carry out their roles.” from the report
Good healthcare support
People could access a range of health professionals, including GPs, nurses, dentists and opticians. Health professionals said communication with the home was positive.
“People were supported to access a range of health care services and regular visits were undertaken by the GP and the practice nurse.” from the report
People's views were heard
People and relatives were invited to give feedback through meetings, surveys and conversations. The home acted on feedback, including by providing more board games and quizzes.
“People and relatives were asked for feedback and knew how to complain.” from the report
Medicine checks were not fully recorded
needs fixingFollow-up checks of staff medicine administration skills had not been recorded. Medicine cabinet temperatures were also not being checked each day at the start of the inspection.
“follow up staff competency checks, to check staff medication management practices remained safe, were not recorded.” from the report
Some areas needed cleaning
needs fixingInspectors found that some areas of the home were not suitably clean. The home arranged a deep clean during the inspection.
“Some areas of the home were not suitably clean.” from the report
Some care records were incomplete
needs fixingRecords were being moved from paper to an electronic system, but some personalised information was not yet transferred. Preferences about how often people wanted baths or showers were not specified in the records inspected.
“people's preferences for frequency of bathing or showering was not specified.” from the report
- 01How are staff's medicine administration skills checked and recorded now?
- 02How are medicine cabinet temperatures checked and recorded each day?
- 03What system is used to make sure all personalised care information is transferred to the electronic records?
- 04How are each person's bathing or showering preferences recorded and followed?
- 05What regular cleaning checks are now in place after the deep clean?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, and the ratings in all five areas remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 January 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; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier safety and consent-recording problems improved.
Inspectors visited on 11 and 12 May 2017 without warning. They spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and reviewed care files, staff records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, cared for and happy. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable food and drink, and care plans that reflected people's needs and choices.
The report says earlier inspections had found problems with fire routes, equipment servicing and recording people's capacity to consent. Inspectors found these issues had been addressed by this inspection.
Safe environment
Inspectors found that earlier problems with fire routes, equipment servicing and environmental safety had been addressed.
“Fire exit routes were clear, which meant in the event of a fire people could be safely evacuated.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff knew what mattered to people and supported their dignity, independence and personal choices.
“People were cared for by staff who were attentive to their needs and wishes.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life histories, likes and dislikes, with activities adapted to individual interests and needs.
“People's life histories, likes and dislikes were clearly recorded in their care plans.” from the report
Strong management
The home sought people's views and used audits, complaints and incident reviews to improve the service.
“The registered manager had effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of care people received.” from the report
Meal variety was being reviewed
minorA survey had identified some comments about the variety of meals. The registered manager planned another survey about food and menu choices.
“The registered manager had identified some comments in relation to the variety of meals” from the report
- 01How will you support my relative's specific health needs and respond if those needs change?
- 02How do you record and review a person's capacity to make particular decisions?
- 03What activities would suit my relative's interests, abilities and preferred daily routine?
- 04What food choices are currently available, and how are special diets or changing nutritional needs managed?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how will we be told what action has been taken?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions with people and staff, and reviews of care, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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 Dalkeith
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 July 2013.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.