CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kirkgate House - Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and suitable systems for medicines, cleanliness and reporting incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people's changing needs were reviewed. The home worked with health professionals and supported people with food, health appointments and legal consent arrangements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and consistent. People were involved in decisions, supported to maintain their skills and encouraged to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support was highly personalised. Inspectors found exceptional work to help people communicate, develop relationships, try new activities, use technology and take part in the local community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had a clear focus on person-centred care and improvement. People, relatives, staff and health professionals gave consistently positive feedback.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good, with Outstanding responsiveness; inspectors found kind, safe care and strong support for choice, independence and community life.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 and 18 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with seven people living in the home, three relatives, nine staff and health professionals. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Good. Responsive was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found that people received individual support, had choices, developed independence and took part in activities in the home and local community.
The report says the building is larger than best practice guidance recommends. The provider had adapted it into smaller self-contained areas, and inspectors said this reduced the possible negative impact. The previous overall rating was also Good, published in July 2017.
Personalised support
Staff adapted support to individual needs and helped people gain confidence, make choices and become more independent.
“Staff provided extremely person-centred support which helped people to achieve many positive outcomes.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to join local activities, build friendships and host events. The home also helped people maintain relationships with relatives who lived far away.
“The staff team supported people to be fully integrated into the community and to avoid social isolation.” from the report
Communication and technology
The home used communication passports, easy-read information, British Sign Language training and adapted technology to support choice and independence.
“Technology was used in an innovative way to enhance people's lives, by giving people new opportunities and experiences.” from the report
Kind and consistent staff
People were supported by a stable staff team who knew them well. Relatives and professionals gave very positive feedback about the staff and management.
“There was a low turnover of staff, which meant people received support from consistent staff who knew them well.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe provider acknowledged that the home does not meet best practice guidance on size. The building had been divided into smaller areas to reduce the possible effect on people.
“The provider recognised the service does not meet best practice guidelines in relation to the size of the service.” from the report
- 01How are the five smaller areas used, and which area would suit my relative's needs and preferences?
- 02How will my relative be involved in decisions about their care and, where appropriate, staff recruitment?
- 03Which activities, community events and relationships could my relative take part in?
- 04How would you support my relative's communication needs, including the use of communication passports or technology?
- 05How would you support my relative to manage their health, attend appointments and take part in healthy eating or exercise activities?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 April 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, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and outstanding support for activities, relationships and individual needs.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 April 2017. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff files, complaints, audits and safety records, and looked around the building.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and kind, respectful support.
The strongest area was how the home responded to people's individual needs and wishes. People had many activities, community opportunities and ways to maintain relationships. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed, and complaints were dealt with quickly.
Rich activities and community life
People could choose from many activities, outings and community opportunities. They were supported to develop skills, work, volunteer and take part in local events.
“People had excellent opportunities to engage in occupation, pastimes and activities to lead fulfilling lifestyles and reach their potential.” from the report
Strong family relationships
Staff encouraged people to keep in touch with relatives and friends. Relationships between people living in the home were also supported sensitively.
“People's relationships were extremely well supported and encouraged so that people had very good family connections and support networks.” from the report
Detailed personal support
Care files included information about people's lives, preferences, needs and risks. Plans were reviewed monthly or when people's needs changed.
“Support plans were clear and consistent.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found medicines were stored, given, recorded and disposed of safely. Staffing levels were sufficient and recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“Medicines were obtained and administered on time, recorded correctly, stored safely and disposed of appropriately.” from the report
Dementia-related changes were still in progress
minorThe home was adapting some areas for people living with dementia. Ask what work remained and how the home would support someone whose memory or needs were changing.
“Other areas were being redecorated and colour schemes had been carefully considered to aid orientation for those living with dementia.” from the report
- 01Which dementia-related changes to the building had been completed, and what work was still planned?
- 02How would you support my relative to choose activities, outings and community opportunities that match their interests?
- 03How are people supported to manage or take their own medicines safely, if they are able to do so?
- 04How many staff are normally on duty during the day and at night, and what happens if someone is absent?
- 05How would you record, investigate and explain a complaint made by my relative or our family?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including care records, medicines, staffing, premises, complaints and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 July 2017 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 Kirkgate House - Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- July 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- September 2015Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvement
- January 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.