CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Keys Hill Park
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but some staff training and survey follow-up needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 April 2019. Inspectors reviewed six care files, three staff recruitment files and other records. They spoke with four people living in the home, one relative, managers and four care staff.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, were treated kindly and had choice and control over their care. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, safeguarding and infection control were generally managed safely.
Some staff had not completed all required training, although training had been booked. The home had also not made action plans to respond to less favourable survey feedback. The overall rating remained Good, as did the previous rating published in 2016.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people compassionately and taking time to listen. People described staff as caring and supportive.
“Our observations showed staff treated people in a kind and compassionate way. Staff gave people time to talk and showed interest in what people were telling them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, prepare food, manage parts of their care and use the local community.
“People were supported in a way that respected their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's preferences, communication needs and daily support needs. People and families were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“People's care records contained personalised details about their needs, preferences and wishes.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Medicines were stored securely and staff were trained and assessed as competent before giving them. The home also investigated medicine errors.
“Medicines were safely managed. There were known systems for ordering, administering and monitoring medicines.” from the report
Outstanding staff training
needs fixingA number of staff had not completed required training in several safety-related subjects. Training had been booked, but the report does not confirm that it was completed by the inspection date.
“A number of staff had not completed training in basic life support, food safety, health and safety, infection control and safeguarding.” from the report
Survey feedback was not action planned
needs fixingThe home had not produced action plans to deal with less favourable survey responses. The manager said concerns were discussed with people individually.
“Action plans had not been devised to address negative responses on surveys.” from the report
Some medicine self-management reviews were overdue
needs fixingSome people's risk assessments about managing their own medicines had not been reviewed recently. The manager said these would be reviewed.
“However, some people's risk assessments around this had not recently been reviewed.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the outstanding training in basic life support, safeguarding, infection control, food safety, health and safety and other mandatory subjects?
- 02What action was taken in response to the less favourable survey responses, and can we see the resulting action plan?
- 03Have the risk assessments for people who manage their own medicines now been reviewed?
- 04How will you involve our relative and family in reviewing the care plan and any changes in support?
- 05What activities, education, employment and community opportunities would be available to our relative?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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, September 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and effective care, but choice, control and activities were not always handled well.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 9 August 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, managers, health and social care professionals, and relatives. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People were generally safe, staff were trained and supported, and people described staff as kind. People were encouraged to make decisions and become more independent.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that some house rules limited people's choice and control. Staffing problems sometimes affected activities and the timing of support. The home investigated complaints and had plans to improve these areas.
People were treated kindly
People, relatives and professionals reported that staff were kind, supportive and welcoming. Inspectors saw good relationships between staff and people.
“The people we spoke with told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Independence was encouraged
People had independence plans linked to their goals. Inspectors saw examples of people learning new skills, including managing money and travelling independently.
“We saw a number of examples where this had helped people achieve greater independence and had a positive impact on their lives.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff spoke positively about their training, supervision and support from managers. New staff received a detailed induction with training, shadowing and competency checks.
“New staff were supported with a comprehensive induction.” from the report
Quality was monitored
External audits covered care records, activities, medicines, staffing and other areas. Actions were recorded and followed up.
“Where actions were identified we saw there was a clear action plan and actions were followed up in order to check they had been completed.” from the report
House rules restricted choice
needs fixingSome rules limited people's control over everyday life. These included restrictions on eating in some areas and having guests stay in bedrooms.
“This demonstrated that people living in the home did not have full choice and control regarding daily living and where they wanted to eat.” from the report
Staffing affected activities
needs fixingPeople and staff raised concerns about staffing levels and high turnover. Inspectors found that staffing sometimes affected whether people could take part in activities they had chosen.
“However, some people told us staffing issues impacted on their ability to participate in activities of their choice.” from the report
Medicines recording errors
needs fixingThe provider had received a high number of medicines errors, mainly linked to recording rather than giving medicines. Managers knew improvement was needed and had identified actions.
“The information submitted to us prior to the inspection showed a high number of medicines errors.” from the report
Some records were incomplete
needs fixingRecords about audio monitors did not clearly show consent, privacy arrangements or whether less restrictive options had been considered. Mental capacity and best interest records also needed improvement.
“There was also a lack of documentation regarding MCA and best interest decisions.” from the report
- 01What house rules are in place now about visitors, bedrooms, eating and drinking, and how can residents challenge a rule they feel is restrictive?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels are enough for each person's planned activities and support?
- 03What action was taken after the medicines recording errors identified in this report?
- 04How do you record consent, privacy arrangements and less restrictive options when audio monitors are used?
- 05How are mental capacity and best interest decisions assessed and recorded now?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with checks of care, medicines, staffing, records, complaints and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 September 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 Keys Hill Park
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.