CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Keal View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding, risks, medicines and infection control. Recruitment checks and staffing arrangements were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were assessed before their stay and staff received induction and ongoing training. Inspectors noted that one medication decision needed a completed best-interest process, which the home said it completed after the visit.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were offered choices, their privacy was respected and they were supported to make decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s preferences and were reviewed with them and their circle of support. Activities and daily support were flexible, and complaints were recorded and managed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found confident leadership, regular staff meetings and systems to monitor quality and make improvements. People and staff gave positive feedback about how the home was managed.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind, person-centred short-break care, with some access and record-keeping issues to follow up.
This was a planned inspection on 20 February 2019. One inspector visited the home, looked around it, observed staff and spoke with people using the service, staff and managers. The inspector also checked care records, medicines, safeguarding, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported by trained staff who understood their needs, choices and communication methods. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and were involved in planning their short breaks.
The report noted two points needing attention. One person’s best-interest record about how medication was given was not fully completed during the visit, although the home said this was completed and updated afterwards. The upper floor could not be reached by people unable to use the stairs, although rooms were allocated after assessing each person’s needs.
Safe support
Staff had training and guidance to recognise abuse and manage risks. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were checked and managed.
“People received safe and effective care from staff who understood how to recognise and report issues of concern and potential abuse.” from the report
Involvement in care
People and those supporting them helped plan and review care. They could make choices about activities, meals, the length of their stay and how support was provided.
“People and their circle of support were involved in planning and reviewing the care they received.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff understood people as individuals and respected their privacy, dignity, preferences and decisions.
“Staff were caring. People were treated with respect and kindness and their rights were upheld.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The home used audits, feedback, complaints and incidents to identify changes. Staff meetings gave staff a chance to raise ideas and concerns.
“Systems and processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service provision and to make any necessary improvements when shortfalls were identified.” from the report
Access to the upper floor
needs fixingPeople who could not use the stairs had no lift or similar facility to reach the upper floor. The home said it assessed people’s needs before choosing rooms and was considering improving access.
“there were no other facilities in place to enable people who could not use the stairs to access the upper floor” from the report
Medication decision record
needs fixingAt the inspection, the best-interest process for one person’s medication method was not fully recorded or agreed with all relevant professionals. The home later confirmed that it had completed the process and updated the records.
“the best interest process needed to be fully completed to ensure the decisions being made had been agreed with all involved professionals.” from the report
- 01If the person cannot use the stairs, which room and facilities would they use during a short break?
- 02What has been done since the inspection to improve access between the two floors?
- 03How are best-interest decisions about medication recorded, agreed and reviewed?
- 04How will the home find out what the person and their family thought about each short break?
- 05How are activities adapted if the person changes their mind or has different communication needs?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care provided, and all five CQC questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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.
What inspectors found, August 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised support, with all five areas rated Good.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 28 July 2016. One inspector visited, spoke with people staying at the home, relatives, managers and support workers, and reviewed support records, staff files, medicines, complaints and quality checks.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements and suitable staff checks. People were supported with healthcare, food and drink, decision-making and risks. Staff treated people with kindness, respected privacy and helped them take part in activities, hobbies and trips.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were also each rated Good. The report did not identify any breaches of regulations or enforcement action.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were checked, recorded, stored and given safely. Staff understood people's individual preferences for taking them.
“Medicines were stored and administered in line with national guidance and good practice.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make their own decisions and to keep developing everyday skills. Staff gave advice when needed without taking over.
“People were supported to make decisions for themselves whenever possible.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind and polite. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy and listening to people's views.
“There was a happy and relaxed atmosphere throughout the inspection.” from the report
Activities and interests
People were helped to choose trips, social activities and hobbies, including outings, art and keeping in touch with family and friends.
“People were supported to engage in a range of social activities and pursue their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you check and update my relative's support plan at the beginning of each short stay?
- 02How will you confirm whether my relative's medicines or instructions have changed since their last stay?
- 03How do you adjust staffing for the number of people staying and the level of support each person needs?
- 04How will staff support my relative if they become anxious or distressed during a stay?
- 05What activities and trips could be arranged around my relative's interests and choices?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, involving six people staying at the home at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 2016 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 Keal View
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 May 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.