CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Durham Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Durham Street and Endymion Street was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks, consent records and quality checks were not managed well enough.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 19 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe and Well-led because of concerns about staffing and risk management. They also examined Effective after finding concerns in that area.
The home had enough suitably trained staff, recruited people safely, managed medicines safely and maintained good infection control. People had a homely setting, support with meals and access to health professionals.
However, risk assessments and care plans were not always clear or up to date. Mental Capacity Act requirements were not always followed. Quality checks did not reliably identify or fix problems, including issues with incidents and care records.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2018, to Requires Improvement. The report identified breaches of Regulations 11, 12 and 17, and the provider must send an action plan.
Safe staffing
Staff were recruited with relevant checks, had suitable training and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“Staffing levels were suitable and the option to increase staffing in specific circumstances was considered if additional support was required.” from the report
Medicines
People received medicines safely. Staff were trained and checked as competent before administering them.
“Staff had been trained in the safe administration of medicines and were assessed as competent before supporting people with their medicines.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements for preventing and managing infection, including COVID-19.
“We were assured the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Choice and independence
The setting supported people to make choices, keep skills and independence, and take part in planning, shopping and preparing meals.
“People were supported to maintain their skills and independence with their meals.” from the report
Positive culture
The report found an open and relaxed culture. A relative said their relative was happy and that staff were lovely.
“Morale within the service was good and the culture was open and relaxed.” from the report
Risk records
seriousSome care records and positive behaviour support plans were not detailed or up to date. This increased the risk that staff might not know how to reduce harm.
“Risks associated with people's care had not always been identified, mitigated, recorded and monitored effectively.” from the report
Learning from incidents
needs fixingThere was little evidence that the home analysed accidents and incidents or used them to prevent problems happening again.
“There was minimal evidence to support learning lessons from accidents or incidents.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act
seriousRecords did not consistently show capacity assessments or best-interest decisions. This affected decisions about restrictions, medication, personal care and finances.
“The service was not following the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Quality monitoring
seriousAudits and checks did not reliably identify the problems found during inspection. Improvements were not always given clear actions, owners or deadlines.
“An effective system was not operated to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
- 01How have you updated each person's risk assessments and care plans since the inspection?
- 02How do you now record capacity assessments and best-interest decisions for medication, personal care, finances and safety gates?
- 03How are accidents and incidents reviewed for patterns, and what action is taken to prevent them happening again?
- 04What actions, deadlines and responsible people are included in your improvement plan?
- 05When was your latest audit of care records, risk management and governance, and what did it find?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with Effective added during the visit; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 2022 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, October 2018
Durham Street and Endymion Street rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with well-led arrangements improved since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 25 September 2018. Inspectors reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment and training records, safety checks, audits and other documents. They also spoke with people using the home, staff and the manager, and observed care.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and robust recruitment. They also found staff were kind, knew people well and supported their choices, independence, health and community activities.
The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The report says the home's quality checks had been developed and embedded. No serious risks or concerns were found, and the previous overall Good rating was maintained.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff listening patiently, respecting people's wishes and giving people space when they wanted to be alone.
“We observed staff were kind and caring in their approach and their interactions with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and supported their individual communication, interests, relationships and independence.
“Staff had an excellent understanding of people as individuals, their personalities, qualities, attributes, how they communicated and expressed themselves” from the report
Safe care arrangements
Risk assessments, medicines checks, staffing arrangements, recruitment procedures and safety checks were found to be suitable.
“Systems continued to ensure safeguarding incidents were addressed.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with health professionals and used health action plans to support people's health and wellbeing.
“Strong links with health professionals were maintained and ensured people received effective healthcare and annual health checks.” from the report
Improved management
The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors found that quality checks were now developed and embedded in daily practice.
“The quality assurance system has been further developed and embedded into the practice of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Has the planned refurbishment of the tired bathroom been completed, and how will the bathroom meet changing needs?
- 02How will you assess and support my relative's preferred way of communicating?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, and how much choice would they have?
- 04How would you support my relative if their health, behaviour or ability to make decisions changed?
- 05How are medicines, care plans and safety checks reviewed, and how would you tell us about any concerns?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings; the second property was unoccupied on the inspection day, and inspectors observed care for three people. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 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.
Every inspection of Durham Street
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
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.