CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Goldcrest House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines practice and infection-control measures. They found no evidence that the reported infection-control concerns had put people at risk.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The rating from the previous comprehensive inspection was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Inspectors did observe staff being patient, kind and respectful, but no current rating was given for Caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The rating from the previous comprehensive inspection was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable leadership, regular checks and audits, good communication with families and evidence that actions were taken to improve the service.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with no evidence that infection-control concerns had put people at risk.
This was a focused inspection on 27 January 2021. It was prompted by concerns about infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic. One inspector met people, spoke with relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The inspectors rated Safe and Well-led as Good. They found enough staff, safe medicines practice, regular risk reviews and infection-control training. People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were observed to be patient, kind and respectful.
The home had a registered manager and inspectors found good oversight, audits and links with health professionals. The overall rating remained Good, but the other three areas were not inspected during this visit. Their earlier ratings were carried forward.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe and well looked after. Inspectors found risk assessments, emergency plans and safety checks in place.
“People felt safe and well looked after. Sufficient cleaning took place to keep people safe from the risk of infection.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Staff were seen spending time with people and supporting their independence. Care was described as person-centred.
“We observed staff being patient, kind and respectful towards people.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Staffing levels were consistent and medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Recruitment checks had also been completed.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good leadership
The management team carried out checks, responded to incidents and used audits to improve the service. Families said the home was open and listened to their views.
“Systems to monitor and assess the safety and quality of the service were in place.” from the report
Infection-control measures
Staff had infection-control training and followed COVID-19 guidance and the home's procedures.
“Staff had received infection prevention and control training.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current ratings and recent findings for Caring, Effective and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
- 02How are infection-control procedures being maintained now, and what would happen if there were a COVID-19 or other infection outbreak?
- 03How are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's health or support needs change?
- 04How are medicines checked, including support for people who may be able to manage some of their own medicines?
- 05How can families raise concerns and contribute their views about a relative's care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings came from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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, October 2018
Goldcrest House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 11 and 19 September 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the registered manager. They observed care, including medicines, looked around the home and checked care, staff and management records.
The home supported younger adults with learning disabilities or autism. Inspectors found that people felt safe and that staff were trained, suitably recruited and available in sufficient numbers. Medicines, infection control, fire safety and risk assessments were managed safely.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities, education, community trips and relationships. Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, and staff were described as kind, respectful and responsive.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was also rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection in March 2016. The report found no serious risks or concerns.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding and how to raise concerns. The home had systems for managing risks, accidents, medicines and emergencies.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home and with the staff who worked there.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff treating people with kindness and respecting their wishes. People were encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves.
“Our observations during our inspection confirmed staff treated people with kindness and were respectful of their wishes and preferences.” from the report
Individual care planning
Care plans included people's backgrounds, communication needs, preferences, risks and daily support. People contributed to reviews of their care.
“Care plans for people's care and support were centred on the person and provided information to enable staff to provide holistic care tailored to people's individual needs.” from the report
Active management
The registered manager was present and approachable. Regular audits and meetings were used to identify and follow up improvements.
“The provider had completed quality assurance checks to identify any areas for improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and update my relative's individual risks, including risks linked to medicines, seizures, abuse or going out in the community?
- 02How do you make sure new staff have the training and competency needed before working independently with my relative?
- 03How will my relative be supported to make choices, communicate their wishes and remain as independent as possible?
- 04What activities, education, trips and community opportunities would be available to my relative?
- 05How are care plans reviewed with the person and their family, and how can we raise a complaint or suggest an improvement?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings were Good; the previous overall Good rating from March 2016 remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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 Goldcrest House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of 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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“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.