CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kirby Muxloe
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that staffing and infection prevention arrangements were safe. This included protective equipment, testing, visiting, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention, staffing and COVID-19 safety arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 28 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and on whether staffing pressures were affecting care.
Inspectors found safe staffing levels. Staff had training in infection control and the safe use of protective equipment. Cleaning had increased, and high-touch and shared areas were cleaned regularly.
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for visitors, testing, vaccinations, protective equipment, social distancing, admissions and managing outbreaks. The home had seven people living there at the time, although it can accommodate up to seven.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Staff training and staffing
Safe staffing levels were maintained, and staff had completed training in infection prevention and the safe use of protective equipment.
“Safe staffing levels were maintained at the service. All staff had completed training in relation to infection prevention and control (IPC) and correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), including how to put it on and remove it safely.” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning was increased during the pandemic. High-touch areas and shared areas were cleaned regularly using suitable products.
“Cleaning schedules were in place and frequency of cleaning had been increased throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Testing and vaccination checks
The home was carrying out COVID-19 testing and checking the vaccination status of staff and professional visitors.
“COVID-19 testing was being carried out for people using the service and staff in line with the latest guidance.” from the report
Policies and visiting
The home had updated infection control policies and clear visiting arrangements. Inspectors said it was meeting the government guidance on visiting.
“The service had clear visiting protocols in place and information was provided to all visitors to ensure they were familiar with IPC and PPE procedures.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently cover shifts when there are staffing pressures, and has this affected people's care?
- 02How often are shared and high-touch areas cleaned now?
- 03What are your current rules for visits, protective equipment and infection testing?
- 04How do you check that staff and professional visitors meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 05When were your infection prevention policies and risk assessments last reviewed?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2022 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, February 2019
Heathcotes (Kirby Muxloe) was rated Good in all areas, with kind and personalised care and minor gaps in staff knowledge and complaints information.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 January 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with one person, four relatives, the manager, three staff members and a visiting occupational therapist. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found the home safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People were supported by staff who knew them well. Care was tailored to people's communication, routines, choices and interests. Relatives said people were happy and safe, and inspectors saw a homely atmosphere.
There were two areas to improve. Not all staff knew the conditions attached to some legal restrictions on people's liberty. The complaints procedure did not include all relevant information, such as how to contact the local government ombudsman. The home said it would remind staff and amend the procedure.
The overall rating was Good, the same as at the previous inspection in June 2016. This means inspectors found consistently good outcomes and care, but not the highest possible standard in every area.
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences, communication styles and routines. People were supported to make choices and develop everyday skills.
“People's care was personalised to their individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people treated with friendliness and respect. Relatives said staff were calm, kind and involved them in care decisions.
“We observed people being treated with friendliness and respect by staff members.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to provide individual support. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely.
“Medicines systems were organised and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Support for independence
People could help with personal care, household tasks, cooking and shopping. The home had also arranged separate accommodation in the grounds to help one person develop skills.
“People had the opportunity to develop and maintain their independence, such as being encouraged to do some of their personal care and to do some household tasks.” from the report
Positive leadership
The manager carried out checks and sought relatives' views. Inspectors found the home was consistently managed and focused on person-centred care.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led.” from the report
Staff knowledge of legal restrictions
needs fixingNot all staff knew the conditions attached to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager said staff would be reminded, so ask how this was followed up.
“Not all staff were aware of conditions of DoLS.” from the report
Incomplete complaints information
minorThe complaints procedure did not explain all relevant routes for raising concerns, including how to contact the local government ombudsman. The manager said it would be amended.
“The procedure did not include all relevant information such as how to contact the local government ombudsman.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure every staff member knows the conditions attached to any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations?
- 02Has the complaints procedure been updated to include how to contact the local government ombudsman?
- 03How will you record and review my relative's communication preferences, routines and personal interests?
- 04How will my relative be supported to build or keep everyday living skills and independence?
- 05How do you check that medicines are given as prescribed and that staff have completed the required medicines training?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, including the premises and care, but inspectors had limited direct communication with people living in the home because of communication difficulties. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 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.
Every inspection of Kirby Muxloe
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.