CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kathryn's House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, admissions, visiting and managing outbreaks. The provider also said it had measures to reduce risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, followed testing and visiting guidance, kept its policy up to date, and had suitable cleaning and hygiene arrangements. Staff training and infection control checks were regularly reviewed.
People could receive visitors in different places, go out with family and friends, and use video calls or external visits where needed. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Regular infection control checks
The home regularly reviewed its infection control processes and completed audits, including a specific COVID-19 audit.
“Infection control processes were regularly reviewed by the registered manager and deputy manager.” from the report
Safe use of protective equipment
Staff had enough PPE, received updated training and were observed using it correctly.
“Staff had access to sufficient PPE and were observed to use this correctly.” from the report
Clean and adapted environment
Cleaning schedules focused on high-touch areas. The home also provided hand gel, a testing and PPE area, and a quiet room for video calls.
“Cleaning schedules had been adapted to ensure high touch areas were cleaned regularly and hand gel was available throughout the home.” from the report
Flexible visiting
People could see visitors in their rooms, communal areas or a visiting pod. They could also go out with family and friends.
“People were able to go out with their families and friends as they wished.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What were the COVID-19-related staffing pressures at the time of the inspection, and how were they affecting care?
- 02How often are infection control audits and PPE training reviewed now?
- 03How are visits managed if a visitor cannot complete a COVID-19 test or if guidance changes?
- 04What arrangements are in place to prevent isolation, loss of mobility, or poor eating and drinking when someone is isolating?
- 05Can you explain the home’s current arrangements for visitors who are not exempt from COVID-19 vaccination requirements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other key questions or the service overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 March 2022 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, July 2018
Kathryn's House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some lunchtime organisation issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 June 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, risk assessments, complaints and audits.
The home was rated Good overall and received Good ratings in all five areas. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, good healthcare support and a clean, safe environment.
People were treated with kindness and dignity. Their choices, independence, personal routines, cultural needs and end-of-life wishes were respected. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed.
The home was well managed, with positive feedback from people, relatives and staff. Inspectors noted that lunchtime could have been better organised, and the manager said action was being taken.
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient skilled staff, and people were not left waiting for care. Staff recruitment checks were also completed.
“There were sufficient skilled staff available to ensure that people's needs were met promptly and people were not waiting for their care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, communication needs and areas of independence. Staff were observed following this guidance.
“Care plans were detailed and gave staff guidance on how people liked their support to be provided.” from the report
Activities and end-of-life support
People had access to varied activities, including individual activities. The home also recorded and supported people's wishes at the end of life.
“A range of person-centred activities were available to people.” from the report
Positive management
People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management. The home used audits and feedback to improve its systems.
“There was a positive culture within the service and staff felt supported.” from the report
Lunchtime organisation
needs fixingInspectors found that lunchtime could have been more organised. One person became anxious and did not always receive support from consistent staff, which also disrupted others.
“People received the support they needed to eat their meals although the lunchtime experience could have been more organised for people.” from the report
Parking availability
minorFeedback was positive overall, but parking availability was identified as a concern.
“With the exception of parking availability being a concern, the feedback regarding the service provided was positive.” from the report
- 01How is lunchtime support organised now, especially for people who become anxious or need consistent staff?
- 02How are care plans reviewed with residents and their relatives, and how quickly are changes in needs added?
- 03How do you check that medicines administration records remain complete and that any gaps are dealt with promptly?
- 04What individual activities would be available for my relative, based on their interests, communication needs and abilities?
- 05What arrangements are available for visitors if parking at the home is limited?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole home, covering all five key questions and the overall quality of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 July 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 Kathryn's House
5 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.