CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kay Hitch Way
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing possible infections and maintaining cleaning standards.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Caring?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 February 2021. Inspectors checked how the home prevented and controlled infections during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found visitors had temperature checks, completed health forms, washed their hands and used personal protective equipment. There was enough protective equipment, staff had been trained to use it, and regular testing was carried out.
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends by video calls and to enjoy activities with staff. Cleaning had increased, including cleaning frequently touched surfaces.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not provide a full quality rating for the home.
Protective equipment
The home had enough protective equipment, and staff had training in how to put it on and remove it safely.
“The home had an ample supply of PPE.” from the report
Testing and isolation
People living in the home and staff were tested regularly. Anyone with symptoms was tested immediately and isolated while waiting for the result.
“If anyone had symptoms of COVID-19 they were tested immediately and isolated until the results were received.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to stay in regular contact with family and friends through video calls and to take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People were supported to have regular contact with their families and friends via video calling.” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning had increased, including cleaning surfaces that people touched often. Staff knew which cleaning fluids to use.
“Cleaning of the home, including frequently touched surfaces, had increased to reduce the risk of transmission of infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and supported to use protective equipment?
- 02How often are residents and staff tested now, and what happens if someone has symptoms?
- 03How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and which cleaning products are used?
- 04How are residents currently supported to keep in touch with family and friends?
- 05When were the other areas of care last fully assessed and rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not provide ratings for the other four questions or a full overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with an overgrown garden limiting access.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 August 2017. It was the first inspection since the home was re-registered in November 2016. Inspectors spoke with the manager, staff, a relative and health and care professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment, training and quality checks.
Three people were living in the home, which can support up to four people. Inspectors found that people were kept safe, treated with respect and supported to make choices. Staff knew people's needs and helped with personal care, medicines, cooking, domestic tasks, activities and appointments.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found good systems for care planning, staff training, medicines, complaints and checking the quality of care. They also noted that the rear garden was overgrown and had limited access, and managers said this was being addressed.
Safe medicines
Inspectors saw staff giving medicines safely. Records showed medicines had been given as prescribed, with regular checks and staff competency reviews.
“Medicines were stored securely and were administered as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff supported people in a cheerful, caring and respectful way. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and responding to people's needs and communication.
“We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect and being discreet in relation to personal care needs which was provided in private.” from the report
Individual activities
People were supported to follow their own interests and use the local community. Activities included shopping, day services, crafts, musical shows and the cinema.
“People had access to a range of social activities and were encouraged by staff to pursue their individual hobbies and interests.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and provider used regular checks and meetings to monitor care and make improvements. Staff felt able to discuss concerns and suggest changes.
“The provider had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service people received.” from the report
Garden access
minorThe rear garden was somewhat overgrown and access for people was limited. Managers said the issue had been raised with the provider and was being resolved.
“We saw that the rear garden area was somewhat overgrown and limited access for people.” from the report
- 01Has the rear garden been cleared and made fully usable for people?
- 02What was the outcome of the applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards mentioned in the report?
- 03How are care plans reviewed now, and how will my relative and family be involved?
- 04How are staffing levels adjusted when people need support with hospital visits, appointments or increased care needs?
- 05How are medicines checked now, including staff training and competency checks?
This was an unannounced overall inspection covering all five areas, and it was the first inspection since the service was re-registered in November 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 September 2017 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 Kay Hitch Way
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 2016.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.