CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at King Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had good oversight and effective systems for checking quality and safety. Inspectors found a person-centred culture and evidence that feedback was used to improve the home.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some communication concerns during the pandemic.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 29 April 2021 and completed their inspection activity on 24 May 2021. They spoke with five people, six relatives and staff, and reviewed care, risk, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were managed, medicines were administered safely, infection controls were effective and there were enough suitable staff. They also found effective checks, audits and oversight by managers.
The inspection was prompted by concerns about safety, staff culture and governance at two other services run by the provider. Inspectors found no evidence that people at this home were at risk from those concerns. Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so earlier ratings were used. The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published in November 2018.
People felt safe
People appeared relaxed with staff, and relatives gave positive feedback about safety and the quality of support.
“People we spent time with indicated they felt safe with the staff and we saw people were relaxed in their company.” from the report
Risks were managed
People had personalised risk assessments and care plans. Incidents and restrictive interventions were reviewed to help reduce future risks.
“Risks associated with people's care and support were identified and well managed to keep people safe.” from the report
Stable staffing
Inspectors found enough staff, with people usually supported by a regular core team. Recruitment checks were in place.
“Each person was allocated a core staff team, so the same group of staff provided a person's support.” from the report
Strong management checks
The provider and managers had effective systems to monitor quality, safety and incidents, and to address shortfalls.
“The quality and safety checks and audits completed in the service were effective in identifying and addressing shortfalls and concerns.” from the report
Person-centred support
The report describes support that promoted dignity, privacy, rights and choice. People were encouraged to make decisions and speak for themselves.
“Care and support was person-centred and promoted people's dignity, privacy and human rights.” from the report
Communication during the pandemic
minorMost contact with relatives was by telephone, online or video call. One relative felt communication could have been better during the pandemic.
“Although, one relative said communication could have been better during the pandemic.” from the report
- 01How do you now keep relatives updated, and what changed after the communication concerns during the pandemic?
- 02How do you review restrictive interventions and show that they are being reduced where possible?
- 03How often are staff checked as competent to administer medicines?
- 04How do you make sure each person continues to receive support from their core staff team?
- 05How are feedback and concerns from people and relatives recorded and acted on?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 July 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, November 2018
King Street is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care with no serious risks or concerns.
Inspectors visited on 10 and 11 October 2018. The first day was unannounced. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff records, audits and the home's quality checks. They also observed care and spoke with people, relatives and staff.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by trained staff and helped to make choices, stay active and be as independent as possible.
Care records reflected people's needs and preferences. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and supported communication in ways that suited each person. The home had systems for managing medicines, handling complaints and learning from incidents.
The home was last inspected on 5 January 2016 and was also rated Good. Inspectors said the evidence continued to support the Good rating and found no serious risks or concerns.
Safe support
Inspectors found that risks were assessed without placing unnecessary restrictions on people. Staff understood safeguarding and there were enough suitably qualified staff.
“Risks were monitored and did not place undue restrictions on people.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them in a calm, respectful and person-centred way. People's privacy, dignity and choices were respected.
“We observed staff interacting with people and found them dedicated to support people in a person-centred way.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, including voluntary work, shopping, dancing and walks. They were also helped to learn skills and be active.
“Activities were person led, meaning focus was placed on people doing what they enjoyed, trying new things and learning new skills.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits and incident reviews to monitor quality and identify improvements. People were involved in meetings about their home.
“Audits were robust and had been embedded into practice.” from the report
New electronic records system
minorThe home was introducing a new electronic system for care plans and daily records. Staff gave mixed feedback because the change was still in its early stages, although the provider was monitoring the roll-out.
“We received mixed feedback from staff about the new way of working” from the report
- 01How is the new electronic care-record system working now, and how are any staff concerns being dealt with?
- 02How will you support my relative's preferred way of communicating, including easy-read or pictorial information if needed?
- 03How do you make sure medicines prescribed on an 'as and when' basis are given only when needed and recorded correctly?
- 04What activities, voluntary work or opportunities for learning new skills could my relative take part in?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint, and how will we be told what action was taken?
This was an inspection of all five key questions and the overall rating; it took place over two days and was unannounced on the first day. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 November 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 King Street
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
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 21 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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
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.