CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kirtling House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, risk management, medicines, recruitment, infection control and incident reporting were all described positively.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during the focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during the focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during the focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open, inclusive and empowering culture, effective audits and clear staff responsibilities. The rating improved from Requires Improvement after a registered manager was appointed.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, supportive care and improved leadership, but this was a focused inspection of only two areas.
The home supports up to eight people with mental health needs and does not provide nursing care. At the inspection, all eight places were occupied.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 May 2022. One inspector spoke with four people, the manager and three staff members. They reviewed support plans, risk assessments, recruitment, training, medicines and quality records. Two outside health and social care professionals also gave feedback.
Safe was rated Good. Inspectors found safeguarding systems, suitable staffing, risk plans, safe recruitment, well-managed medicines and effective infection control. They also found that staff learned from accidents and incidents.
Well-led was rated Good, improving from Requires Improvement. A registered manager was now in post, and inspectors found regular audits, staff support, an open culture and plans for further improvement. The overall rating stayed Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People spoke positively about staff. They said staff were caring, supportive, non-judgemental and respectful.
“Staff are very supportive and non-judgemental, which is very important with mental health.” from the report
Good understanding of mental health
People and health professionals said staff understood mental health needs and acted when people showed signs of becoming unwell.
“Staff have a good understanding of mental illness; what happens and how to handle it.” from the report
Safe support and staffing
Inspectors found clear risk plans, enough experienced staff and staffing levels that could be increased when people's needs changed.
“Staffing levels were reviewed according to people's changing needs and activities.” from the report
Medicines and independence
People were supported to manage their own medicines through individual risk assessments and a gradual process towards independence.
“People were supported to manage their own medicines within a framework of individual risk assessment.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had a registered manager, regular audits and systems to follow up actions. This led to the well-led rating improving to Good.
“There were effective systems of governance including regular audits of the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Working with other services
Health professionals described good communication and joint working around people's needs, transitions and changing risks.
“Kirtling were able to recognise the very subtle warning signs from this individual and made contact with the team.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's individual risks, including early warning signs of a mental health crisis?
- 02How would you support my relative to manage their own medicines, and what checks would be used during that process?
- 03What staffing would be available if my relative's needs changed, including whether waking-night support could be provided?
- 04How would you involve my relative in their support plan and in decisions about moving towards greater independence?
- 05How would you work with community mental health and other services if my relative became unwell or needed extra support?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 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, January 2022
Kirtling House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 visit.
The inspection took place on 7 January 2022 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection looking at infection control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found good practice. The home had thorough cleaning procedures, up-to-date infection-control policies, safe visiting arrangements and effective use of protective equipment. Inspectors were assured that people were admitted safely and that infection risks were being managed.
This inspection did not give an overall rating or a rating for Safe. It was not a full review of all five areas of care.
Safe admissions
The provider worked with outside professionals to admit people safely while meeting their mental health needs.
“The provider worked closely with external professionals to ensure that people were able to be safely admitted to the home whilst meeting their mental health needs.” from the report
Thorough cleaning
Staff cleaned the home twice a day using hot soapy water followed by disinfectant.
“Staff carried out a thorough cleaning procedure twice daily.” from the report
Up-to-date policies
The infection-control and COVID-19 policies were described as thorough and current.
“Policies and procedures in relation to infection control and COVID-19 were thorough and up to date.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had relevant infection-control training and used protective equipment appropriately.
“Staff received the relevant infection control and prevention training and adhered to good practice around using personal protective equipment.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures and covering shifts?
- 02How often are communal areas and frequently touched surfaces cleaned now?
- 03How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet current infection-control requirements?
- 04How are visits arranged, and what happens if there is an infection outbreak?
- 05How do you assess whether a new admission can be safely supported while meeting their mental health needs?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 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.
Every inspection of Kirtling House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.