CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Isaac Robinson Court - Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicine systems, appropriate recruitment and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was consistently managed and had a positive, person-centred culture. Managers used audits and feedback to monitor quality and improve the service.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe, had choice and received good support from well-led staff.
This was a focused inspection on 6 July 2023. Inspectors spoke with 10 people, six relatives, staff, managers and a visiting professional. They reviewed four care files, medicine records, recruitment records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable safeguarding and risk systems, safe medicines practice, good infection control and appropriate recruitment. People said they felt safe and had plenty of staff around to help them.
Inspectors found a positive culture. Staff understood people's needs, supported choice and worked with relatives and health professionals. The home had an effective system for checking quality and making improvements.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they were happy and felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“People told us they were happy and felt safe in the service.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make choices and kept restrictions to a minimum. Risk was managed while people retained freedom and control.
“People, including those unable to make decisions for themselves, had as much freedom, choice, and control over their lives as possible because staff managed risks to minimise restrictions.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care and saw staff spending meaningful, positive time with people.
“There were enough staff to ensure people received safe care.” from the report
Strong quality checks
The provider used audits to monitor safety and quality. Inspectors found that this information was used to improve the home.
“The provider had an effective system in place which monitored the quality and safety of the service through a robust audit system.” from the report
Positive culture
Management and staff valued people's individuality and supported their wishes. Relatives and health professionals also described the home positively.
“Management and staff put people's needs and wishes at the heart of everything they did.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01The inspection did not assess Effective, Caring or Responsive. What are the current ratings and evidence for these three areas?
- 02How do you make sure people continue to have maximum choice and control while risks are managed?
- 03How are medicine administration skills checked and updated for each member of staff?
- 04How do you use accidents, incidents and audit findings to make changes to people's care?
- 05How are relatives and health professionals involved when a person's needs or wishes change?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 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.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Isaac Robinson Court - Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some individual needs and minor service issues needing attention.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit over two days. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, visitors, staff and health professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment records, training records and management checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People lived in a clean environment, had enough staff, received medicines as prescribed and were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
Inspectors found many examples of very person-centred support. These included helping people keep friendships, take part in community activities, develop skills and receive personalised end of life care. They also identified some areas to improve, including support for one person's complex needs, an overstock of some medicines and limited dessert choices.
Person-centred support
Inspectors found strong evidence that support was shaped around people's preferences, relationships and goals. People were helped to build skills, gain confidence and live more independently.
“There was very good evidence people received person-centred care, which helped to enhance the quality of their lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and visitors said staff were caring and approachable. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“Staff seem very caring and are well-liked by service users. Staff speak to people in a wonderful way; we can't speak more highly of them.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to follow their interests, maintain friendships and use local services. Inspectors described several activities as outstanding practice.
“People were supported to follow their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Personalised end of life care
The home planned end of life care around people's wishes and allowed people to remain there if they wanted to. A health professional described the care as exemplary.
“I can say it was exemplary.” from the report
Good management oversight
The home used audits, meetings, surveys and incident reviews to monitor quality and make improvements. Staff said management was supportive and available.
“There was a quality monitoring system which helped to identify shortfalls, so action could be taken.” from the report
One person's complex needs
needs fixingInspectors found that one person receiving respite care had not had all their complex needs met, particularly around building relationships and social outings. Extra staff support was put in place and the issue was discussed with health and social care professionals.
“However, one person who received a respite service had not had their complex needs fully met, especially in relation to building up relationships and social outings.” from the report
Medicine overstock
minorSome medicines were overstocked because of a change in ordering systems. The manager planned to seek specialist advice about dealing with this.
“The service had an overstock of some medicines due to a change in ordering systems.” from the report
Emergency information
needs fixingThere had been an incident when important emergency information was not readily available to staff. The home said this had been addressed and clearer guidance was now available.
“There had been a recent incident when important emergency information had not been readily available for staff.” from the report
Building improvements
minorThe environment was clean and safe, but a refurbishment plan included replacing some furniture and flooring. Three bathrooms needed new flooring and improved extractor fans to address damp areas.
“Three bathrooms were due to have new floor covering and improved extractor fans to address damp areas.” from the report
Limited dessert choice
minorMenus offered choices and alternatives, but inspectors said the range of desserts was limited. This was raised with management.
“The menus provided choices and alternatives, although the choice of desserts was limited.” from the report
- 01How will you assess and meet my relative's individual needs if they require respite care or complex support?
- 02What changes were made after the incident involving emergency information, and how do staff access this information now?
- 03How are medicines ordered, checked and stored, and has the previous overstock problem been resolved?
- 04Has the planned work to address damp areas in the bathrooms been completed?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative based on their interests?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating and all five question ratings were also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 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 Isaac Robinson Court - Care Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Isaac Robinson Court - Care Home →
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Isaac Robinson Court - Care Home →
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 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.