CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Glen Rosa & Kitwood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staffing levels were below the home's expected level on some day and night shifts. Other safety arrangements, including risk assessments, medicines, recruitment checks and the premises, were found to be satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. People had suitable food and drink, nutritional risks were addressed, and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kindness, compassion, respect for privacy and support for people's choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences and were reviewed. The home provided daily activities and followed its complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to monitor and improve the home, although staffing shortfalls showed that one management system had not worked consistently.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Good overall, but safe care was Requires Improvement because staffing levels were not always maintained.
Inspectors visited on 2 October 2017. They observed care, looked around the building and checked care, staff and management records. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals.
The home was rated Good overall, and was also rated Good for effective, caring, responsive and well-led care. People and relatives were positive about the care. Inspectors saw kind, personalised support, safe medicines management, suitable activities and good links with health professionals.
Safe care was rated Requires Improvement because staffing levels were not consistently maintained on day and night shifts. Inspectors found no significant impact on people, and the home was recruiting extra staff. The previous overall rating of Good from July 2015 was maintained.
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people well and adapted their approach to individual moods, needs and communication. Inspectors saw warm and compassionate interactions.
“We observed staff were kind and compassionate in their approach to people.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed. Records, storage, checks and staff competency arrangements were found to be safe.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) were well completed demonstrating people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Responsive care planning
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories and changing needs. Staff were able to describe and follow them.
“People's needs were assessed prior to admission to the service.” from the report
Staffing was inconsistent
needs fixingThe home did not always have its expected staffing level. This happened on both day and night shifts and staff said it could delay responses or make care rushed.
“We saw on five of the last 22 days, only seven staff had been on duty.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing levels on day and night shifts, and how often are shifts below the planned level?
- 02Has the plan to recruit an additional 10% of staff resolved the staffing shortfalls?
- 03Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what happened with the application to become the registered manager?
- 04How do you use people's changing needs and dependency levels to decide how many staff are needed?
- 05What changes were made after the inspection about staff leaving people during mealtime support?
This was an inspection of the overall service covering all five questions, with additional focus on falls risks and moving and handling after two reported incidents. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 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 Glen Rosa & Kitwood House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2017Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 87 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 understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.