CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Katherine House Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitor safety, protective equipment, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and support for visits and wellbeing.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 October 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found that the home was preventing visitors from spreading infections, using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, and following shielding and social distancing rules. They also found up-to-date policies and plans.
The home supported planned visits and people's wellbeing. It helped people stay in touch with relatives, including using a sign language translator for one person receiving end of life care.
The service was marked “Inspected but not rated”. This means the inspection did not give a full quality rating or reassess all five areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors were asked to complete health checks, use handwashing facilities and wear protective equipment. Visits were planned and allowed time for cleaning between them.
“Visitors were asked to read and sign a health declaration and have their temperature checked” from the report
Infection control systems
Inspectors found arrangements for testing, protective equipment, hygiene, admissions and managing possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks could be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Planning and communication
The home had policies, procedures and contingency plans, and audits were used to support improvements. Staff and relatives received regular communication.
“Katherine House had clear policies, procedures and contingency plans in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visitors currently checked and supported to use protective equipment?
- 03How often are people living in the home and staff tested, if testing is still needed?
- 04How does the home support people to communicate with relatives, including people receiving end of life care?
- 05What arrangements are in place to prevent and manage an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; it did not provide a full rating across the five questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 October 2020 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, August 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsive care; inspectors found kind, personalised support and only minor areas being addressed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 20 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and other records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People were found to be safe, treated with kindness and respect, and supported by staff who understood their needs. The home was clean and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
Responsive was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found highly personalised care, varied activities, strong links with the community and thoughtful support for equality, communication, relationships and end of life wishes.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection in 2016. Responsive care improved from Good to Outstanding.
Personalised care
Care was tailored to people's interests, preferences and life histories. People and families were involved in creating care plans.
“People received care of very good quality that was person centred and valued people as individuals.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The wellbeing team arranged varied activities and outings, including theatre trips, dancing, yoga and community projects. Links with other homes and organisations helped reduce social isolation.
“People living at the home were supported to live active and fulfilling lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm, cheerful interactions throughout the day. Staff understood people's individual preferences and supported independence and privacy.
“Conversation was fun and light hearted, which created a pleasant and cheerful atmosphere.” from the report
Support for equality and communication
The home supported people to express their identity and preferences. It used measures such as larger print, a hearing loop and personalised communication approaches when needed.
“There was an understanding of the diverse needs of people living in the home including those who identified as LGBT.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors found motivated staff and managers who listened to people's views. Regular audits and meetings were used to monitor the quality and safety of the home.
“The management team provided good leadership to a committed and motivated staff team.” from the report
Training delivery
needs fixingSome feedback said staff training was mainly paper based and that more variety would help. The home said this was already being addressed with a new trainer.
“We did receive some feedback that training was very much 'paper based' and that some variety in how training was delivered would be beneficial.” from the report
Night staffing vacancies
minorThe home was recruiting to vacant night shift posts and sometimes used agency staff. Inspectors still found staffing levels sufficient at the time of the visit.
“The home was in the process of recruiting to vacant night shift posts.” from the report
Medicine supply system
minorMedicines were supplied in a monitored dosage system, but this arrangement was being reviewed. Inspectors found suitable storage, stock checks and recording arrangements.
“At the time of our inspection, medicines were being supplied in a monitored dosage system, but this was under review.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to make staff training less paper based?
- 02Have all vacant night shift posts now been filled, and how often is agency staff used at night?
- 03What decision was reached about the monitored dosage system for medicines?
- 04How will activities be matched to my relative's interests, history, communication needs and identity?
- 05How will my relative's end of life wishes be recorded and supported if they want to remain at the home?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating remained Good and Responsive improved from Good to Outstanding since 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 August 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 Katherine House Rest Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 2011.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, 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 £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.