CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dulverton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, managing visitors and admissions, providing testing, maintaining hygiene and social distancing, and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Dulverton House was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about its infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 10 March 2021. It looked at how the home was prepared to prevent and control coronavirus infections, rather than carrying out a full inspection of all areas of care.
Inspectors found good practice. Staff and essential visitors used protective equipment, shared health information, had temperature checks and completed NHS Track and Trace details before entering.
The home supported residents' social and emotional wellbeing and kept relatives updated through calls and visits. Inspectors were assured about testing, admissions, PPE, cleaning, social distancing and the infection control policy.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a full Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating, and the Safe question was also inspected but not rated.
Family communication
The home kept relatives informed about government guidance and residents' health through calls and visits.
“Relatives were kept informed about people's health using telephone and video calls and garden visits.” from the report
Staff infection control training
Staff had training in PPE, hand hygiene and other coronavirus-related infection control measures. The manager also checked staff competency in using PPE safely.
“All staff had undertaken training in infection prevention and control.” from the report
Infection control oversight
The manager had quality checks and a communication system to support consistent infection control practice.
“The registered manager had quality assurance systems in place to ensure safe care delivery.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you checking that staff continue to use PPE safely and correctly?
- 02How do you keep relatives updated about residents' health and changes to visiting arrangements?
- 03How often are staff's infection prevention and PPE skills checked?
- 04How do you make sure your infection prevention and control policy remains up to date?
- 05What were the home's full ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care at the previous inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 2021 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some further work on staff training and the dementia-friendly environment.
The inspection took place on 18 and 20 February 2019. One inspector visited, including an unannounced first day. They reviewed four care records, five staff files and service records, and spoke with people, a relative, staff and health professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, respected their choices and provided kind, personalised support.
The home was meeting legal requirements. It had safe medicine systems, appropriate staffing, regular safety checks and processes for learning from incidents. Some practical training and further dementia-friendly improvements were still being developed.
Safe care
Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.
“Trained and competent staff safely managed medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people's individual needs and supported their choices, dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff were considerate and patient with people, showing empathy when appropriate.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and levels of independence. Staff adapted communication and support for people who had difficulty expressing themselves.
“Care plans were concise and detailed people's levels of independence, needs and likes.” from the report
End of life care
Staff followed people's wishes and religious needs. Relatives were given particularly strong support during this time.
“Staff paid meticulous attention to detail during end of life care.” from the report
Good leadership and teamwork
Staff felt supported, and regular checks were used to maintain and improve care. Families and staff could give feedback and suggest changes.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led.” from the report
Practical staff training
minorThe manager had identified that some staff learned better through different training methods. More practical training sessions were still being sourced.
“This was a work in progress to source more practical sessions to develop staff skills and expertise.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
minorSome improvements had been made, but further changes to make the environment more suitable for people living with dementia were still in progress.
“Some good practices were in place, and further developments in progress to encourage a more dementia friendly environment.” from the report
- 01What practical training has been added since the inspection, and which staff have completed it?
- 02What further changes have been made to create a more dementia-friendly environment?
- 03How will you make sure care plans continue to reflect changes in a person's needs and preferences?
- 04How are people's end of life wishes, religious needs and pain relief arrangements recorded and followed?
- 05How do relatives receive updates and raise concerns if a person's needs change?
This was a scheduled inspection of the whole care home and covered all five CQC areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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 Dulverton House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 January 2011.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North 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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.