CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kepplegate House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. They found arrangements for visitors, social distancing, PPE, testing, cleaning, waste disposal and managing possible outbreaks.
- 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?
- Good
- 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, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements kept people safe.
This was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures, including visits, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and shielding.
Inspectors found several good practices. Staff had infection control training, visitors had to arrange visits in advance, and equipment and facilities were available to support handwashing, cleaning and safe visits.
The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives using technology and helped them access health professionals remotely. Inspectors were assured about the arrangements they checked.
The service was not given an overall rating or a rating for Safe. This inspection did not assess the other four areas of care.
Staff training
Staff had access to detailed infection control training. Their understanding and competence were checked.
“The registered manager had ensured staff could access comprehensive and informative training in various aspects of infection control.” from the report
Safer visits
The home used a separate porch area for socially distanced visits. Visits were arranged in advance and supported with handwashing facilities, gel and PPE.
“The environment had been arranged to minimise the risk of infection and support contact with visitors.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to use computers, tablets and telephones to stay in touch with people important to them. Private conversations were supported.
“Staff supported people to use the technology and then left the area so private conversations could be held.” from the report
Cleaning and infection controls
The home used temperature checks, safe waste disposal, increased cleaning and specialist cleaning equipment. Staff knew the infection control processes.
“Processes to minimise the risk of infection were known by staff and carried out to minimise the risk and spread of infection.” from the report
Testing decisions
The home took part in whole-home testing. People were supported to understand the risks and benefits before deciding whether to take part.
“Conversations explaining the risks and benefits took place and people could watch a video of the testing process to support their decision making.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently arranged, and what infection control measures are still used for visits?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested, and how are people supported to decide whether to take part?
- 03How do you check that staff remain competent in infection prevention and control?
- 04What cleaning arrangements and specialist equipment are currently used to reduce infection risks?
- 05How can residents privately contact relatives and health professionals if they cannot meet in person?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 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, April 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and individual care across the home and agency, with no serious risks or concerns identified.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 6 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people using the home and agency, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment, staffing and the building.
People said they felt safe and were treated kindly and respectfully. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines procedures, clean premises and trained staff. Care plans were up to date and reflected people's needs, wishes and preferences.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in February 2016. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
People felt safe
People using both services said they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report unsafe care or abuse.
“I definitely feel safe the staff here are excellent.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors checked a sample of medicines and found they were ordered, stored, given and disposed of correctly.
“We saw medicines had been ordered appropriately, checked on receipt into the home, given as prescribed and stored and disposed of correctly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed to be caring, polite and compassionate. They respected people's privacy and dignity.
“We saw staff were caring and attentive. They were polite, respectful and kind and showed compassion to people in their care.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans included people's needs, wishes and preferences. People were involved in decisions about how their care was delivered.
“We found the service provided care and support that was focused on individual needs, preferences and routines of people they supported.” from the report
Reliable home care visits
People using the agency said staff were reliable and usually came at the expected time. Some people had the same group of carers.
“People supported by the domiciliary service said they had the same group of carers.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you update my relative's risk assessment if their mobility, health or communication needs change?
- 02How will you make sure my relative receives their medicines at the right times and that records remain complete?
- 03Which staff would usually support my relative, and what happens if their regular carer is unavailable?
- 04How will my relative be involved in reviewing their care plan and expressing their wishes?
- 05How would you support my relative's recorded end of life wishes if they chose to remain at the home?
This was a comprehensive inspection of the care home and domiciliary care service, covering all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 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 Kepplegate House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.