CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Klein
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, risk assessments, building safety checks and infection prevention arrangements were found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this inspection, although inspectors described the care they observed as kind, compassionate and respectful.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this inspection, although inspectors found staff understood people's individual needs and supported their choices and aspirations.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, quality checks and a positive, open culture. Inspectors found leaders worked well with relatives and other professionals.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and effective management, with some staff shortages and building work noted.
One inspector visited on 04 February 2023. They spoke with both people living there, two relatives, seven staff and three professionals. They also checked medicines records, care plans, risk assessments and other records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely and staff supported people to make choices and take positive risks. Infection prevention arrangements were also found to be suitable.
Staff knew people well and provided kind, respectful support. The home used agency staff because of shortages, but inspectors said this had not affected people's support. Building work was under way to repair a roof leak, and the provider said worn areas would be refurbished.
This was not a full review of all five CQC areas. Only Safe and Well-led were assessed during this inspection. The overall Good rating and the previous Good rating remained in place.
Safe medicines management
Inspectors found medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Records matched the medicines checked, with no gaps in administration records.
“Medicines were stored, administered and managed safely.” from the report
Choice and least restriction
People were supported to make daily choices and take positive risks. Staff aimed to avoid restraint and followed plans where it might rarely be needed.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors found staff protected people's privacy and dignity, understood their needs and supported their wellbeing and enjoyment.
“People received kind and compassionate care.” from the report
Good knowledge of people
Staff knew people well and supported their personal goals. Relatives and professionals gave positive feedback about communication and involvement.
“Staff knew and understood people well and were responsive, supporting their aspirations to live a quality life of their choosing.” from the report
Management and oversight
There was a clear management structure and quality checks covering areas such as medicines, safety and care records. Identified actions were followed up.
“There was a clear management structure in place with support from the provider relating to quality, legal requirements and the experiences of people.” from the report
Staff shortages and agency use
minorThe home was experiencing staff shortages and was recruiting. Agency staff were being used, although inspectors found they were consistent and knew people well.
“The service was experiencing staff shortages in a similar way to the rest of the adult social care sector and were actively recruiting new staff.” from the report
Roof leak and worn areas
minorBuilding work was taking place to remedy a roof leak. The provider also said some worn parts of the home would be refurbished and redecorated.
“There were some building works taking place at the time of our inspection to remedy a roof leak.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff currently work here, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure temporary staff know the people living here and their support plans?
- 03Has the roof leak been fully repaired, and have the worn areas been refurbished and redecorated?
- 04How are people involved in decisions about their daily routines, activities and support?
- 05How do you review whether medicines can be reduced or are still needed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the report does not give new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 March 2023 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls, but some staff risk assessments were not formally recorded.
This was a targeted inspection on 18 February 2021. Inspectors checked how well the home was preventing and controlling COVID-19 infections. The inspection was announced.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning and managing a possible outbreak. Staff had received extra infection-control training and there were enough supplies of protective equipment.
The registered manager understood the health and other risks faced by staff, but this information had not been formally recorded for everyone at the time of the inspection. The home later said individual risk assessments were being completed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor controls
The home had several checks for visitors, including testing, temperature checks, handwashing and a health declaration.
“Visitors were asked to consent to a rapid COVID-19 test, have their temperature checked, wash their hands and complete a health declaration before they would be allowed to enter the service.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had extra infection-control training, and inspectors saw them using protective equipment appropriately. Supplies were sufficient.
“Staff had received additional training in infection prevention and control and the use of PPE including masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser.” from the report
Cleaning and outbreak planning
Cleaning of frequently touched surfaces had increased. The home also had a plan and risk assessment for a possible COVID-19 outbreak.
“Cleaning schedules and procedures had been enhanced to include more frequent cleaning of touch points such as handrails and light switches.” from the report
Testing arrangements
People living at the home and staff took part in regular whole-home COVID-19 testing. Positive results were followed by self-isolation in line with national guidance.
“People and staff took part in regular COVID-19 'whole home' testing.” from the report
Staff risk records
needs fixingThe manager knew staff well and had considered risks linked to health needs and ethnicity, but this information was not formally recorded for everyone during the inspection. The home later said individual risk assessments were being completed.
“Whilst it was clear the registered manager knew staff well; this information had not been formally recorded.” from the report
- 01Have individual risk assessments now been completed for every staff member who may be at higher risk?
- 02How often are people and staff tested for COVID-19, and what happens after a positive result?
- 03How do you check that staff use masks, gloves and aprons correctly?
- 04How are visitor testing, temperature checks, handwashing and health declarations managed now?
- 05How often are frequently touched areas cleaned and infection-control audits carried out?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the other areas of care were not assessed and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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.
Every inspection of Klein
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 February 2013.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Plymouth
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.