CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Goldhill House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed with people's involvement, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient and accidents were investigated.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and assessed as competent. People chose what, when and where to eat, could access health support, and were supported to make decisions in line with the law.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. People directed their own care, had privacy and were supported to work towards greater independence and community involvement.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans focused on people's goals, choices and life skills. Activities were tailored to people's interests, communication needs were considered and complaints were used to improve the service.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong oversight, regular reviews and an open culture. The management team worked with people, staff and outside professionals to improve care and support independence.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care that supported people to become more independent.
This was the home's first inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 17 January 2023. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience reviewed records, spoke with people, staff and a professional, and checked how the home was run.
Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly and involved in their care. Staff supported people to make choices, take positive risks and work towards greater independence. Medicines, staffing, infection control and care planning were found to be managed safely.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of the inspection. It was the first inspection, so there was no previous rating to compare.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make their own decisions, take positive risks and build skills for greater independence. The home worked towards reducing restrictions where possible.
“People were encouraged to take positive risks safely. This meant their freedom was promoted and they became more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and could choose how to spend their time.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. Staff knew and respected people's diverse characteristics.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans focused on people's life goals, preferences and skills. Staff helped people take part in activities, work and community life.
“The information in people's care plans focused on whole life goals and what skills they could improve on.” from the report
Strong management
The management team used audits, reviews and feedback to identify risks and improve care. Staff said they felt supported and valued.
“There was a strong focus on quality review, monitoring and accountability.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and safe recruitment checks. People were supported to take medicines safely and work towards managing them independently.
“There were enough staff on duty to support people safely and meet their needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative to work towards their own goals and greater independence?
- 02How would you assess and review any risks my relative wants to take?
- 03How would you support my relative to manage their medicines, and how would you respond if problems arose?
- 04What activities, work or community opportunities would match my relative's interests?
- 05How would you adapt information and communication to my relative's preferred way of understanding it?
This was the home's first comprehensive inspection and covered all five key questions, but CQC only inspected people receiving personal care and did not assess every aspect of support for everyone living there. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2023 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 Goldhill House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 March 2021.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.