CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kirkside Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe risk management, suitable staffing levels, safe recruitment and generally safe medicines management, but some as-required medicine instructions needed to be clearer.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible, approachable and understood their responsibilities. The home had regular audits, supervision, meetings and systems for identifying and managing risks.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Kirkside Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support and good management, with minor issues around staffing cover and some medicine instructions.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 and 28 June 2019. It followed concerns about how physical interventions, including restraint, were managed. The inspector spoke with people using the home, staff, managers, a relative, an advocate and health professionals, and reviewed care records, medicines, incidents, training and recruitment records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that physical interventions were used only as a last resort and found no evidence of inappropriate restraint. People were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were stored securely and staffing levels were generally sufficient.
The home was also found to have kind staff, positive relationships and managers who were visible and approachable. Audits, reviews and feedback were used to monitor and improve care. Inspectors noted that instructions for some as-required medicines needed to be clearer, and that staff had mixed views about how cover was arranged during sickness.
Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit. Their previous ratings from the last comprehensive inspection were used when calculating the overall rating. The previous overall rating was also Good, published on 24 August 2018.
Safe physical interventions
Staff were trained to manage aggression, and physical interventions were used only as a last resort. Records were reviewed to check that practice remained safe.
“Any physical interventions were only used as a last resort. Records of any physical interventions were maintained and analysed to ensure safe practice.” from the report
People felt safe and happy
People told inspectors they were happy and enjoyed the support they received. Staff were described as kind and caring, with positive relationships with people.
“People were happy at the service; they said they enjoyed life and the support they received was good.” from the report
Good oversight
The management team had a visible presence and knew people's needs. Regular audits and checks were used to monitor care and identify improvements.
“The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure on-going improvements.” from the report
Cover during staff sickness
needs fixingStaff gave mixed views about how staff were deployed when colleagues were off sick. The manager agreed to review this with the staff team.
“We received mixed views from staff regarding the deployment of staff during periods of staff sickness.” from the report
Some medicine instructions
needs fixingStaff knew how to give as-required medicines, but the recorded instructions for some medicines were not clear enough. The home arranged to review them with the person's GP.
“However, the instructions recorded for some of these medicines needed to be clearer.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the review of staffing cover during periods of sickness?
- 02Have the instructions for all as-required medicines now been clarified with the relevant GP?
- 03What records are kept and reviewed after any physical intervention?
- 04What are the current ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
- 05How do people and their relatives give feedback, and what recent changes were made as a result?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings carried over from previous comprehensive inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 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, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and improvements in medicines safety, but hot-weather storage needed attention.
This was a comprehensive inspection. It took place on 19 and 25 July 2018. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, a relative and managers. They also checked care plans, medicines records and other documents.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff knew people well and supported activities, independence, health needs and community involvement.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and breached Regulation 12 about safe care and treatment. Medicines were now managed safely overall. However, medicine cupboards had become too hot during recent hot weather, and the home was taking action to address this.
A new manager had been appointed after the previous registered manager left. The new manager had applied to become registered. Inspectors found good systems for monitoring quality, although some completed actions were not always signed off.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and treated them well. Inspectors observed patient, respectful interactions and support that protected privacy and dignity.
“Throughout the inspection we observed positive interactions between people who lived at the service and staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's histories, preferences and needs. Staff knew how to support people in different situations and involved them in care reviews.
“Support plans were person centred, focusing upon the person as an individual.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, do things for themselves and take part in activities at home and in the community.
“Staff were committed to promoting people's independence and supporting them to make choices.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs. Staff had completed training and new staff received an induction including the Care Certificate.
“Sufficient skilled staff were safely recruited to meet people's individual needs.” from the report
Improved medicines management
The home had made improvements since the previous inspection. Records, stock checks and medicine ordering were generally managed safely.
“We found at this inspection, systems had been put in place to ensure medicines were overall, managed safely.” from the report
Medicine storage in hot weather
needs fixingMedicine cupboard temperatures had been above the manufacturers' recommended storage temperature during recent hot weather. Temporary measures were in place and cooling equipment had been ordered.
“However, in recent weeks, during spells of hot weather, the temperatures of the medicine cupboards had been higher than the manufacturers recommended storage temperature.” from the report
One unclear medicine instruction
needs fixingFor one person, it was not clear which dose of a variable-dose medicine should be given in different circumstances. The manager contacted the GP and said the support plan would be updated.
“One person was prescribed a variable dose medicine and it was not clear what dose to give in what circumstances.” from the report
Audit actions not always signed off
minorThe home had quality checks and action plans, but inspectors found that completed actions were not always formally signed off.
“We noted the actions completed were not always signed off as completed on the action plans.” from the report
- 01How are medicine cupboard temperatures monitored and managed during hot weather now?
- 02Has the unclear instruction for the variable-dose medicine been corrected in the person's support plan?
- 03Who is currently managing the home, and what is the progress of the application to become the registered manager?
- 04How do you make sure actions from audits are completed and formally signed off?
- 05How will my relative be involved in reviewing their support plan, activities and healthcare needs?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with all five ratings given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 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 Kirkside Lodge
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 November 2014.
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 Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 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.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.