CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Selkirk House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, skin care, medicines, equipment and infection control were checked, although some staff were not wearing masks correctly during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff understood their roles, communicated well and used audits, feedback and improvement plans to monitor the service.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well-led, but some mask use and waiting times needed attention.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 16 and 17 February 2022. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, and checks were made on equipment and the building. Managers reviewed accidents and incidents and used audits to monitor quality.
Inspectors found some staff were not wearing face masks correctly. The manager acted immediately and arranged further infection control training. Some people and staff also said people sometimes waited for care, especially at busy times. The manager was recruiting more staff.
Detailed risk planning
Care plans gave staff clear instructions about risks, including moving people safely and protecting fragile skin.
“Care plans and risk assessments included detailed information about people's skin integrity and the support they needed to minimise the risks of developing pressure sores.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Records showed people received them as prescribed.
“Medicines administration records showed people received their medicines as prescribed for them and gave an accurate record of medicines which had been administered.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home recorded accidents and incidents, reviewed them each month and used the information to reduce the chance of problems happening again.
“Accidents and incidents were recorded by staff and actions were taken to reduce the risk of them happening again.” from the report
Open communication
People could give feedback through meetings and surveys. Staff said communication with managers was good and that they could raise concerns.
“Staff we spoke with told us communication between staff and managers was good.” from the report
Incorrect mask use
needs fixingSome staff were not wearing face masks correctly during the inspection. The manager addressed this immediately and arranged for staff to repeat infection prevention training.
“During the inspection we saw some staff were not wearing their face masks correctly.” from the report
Waiting for care
needs fixingSome people and staff said people sometimes had to wait for their care needs to be met, particularly in the mornings. The home was recruiting more staff.
“Sometimes there is quite a long wait for staff to come. This is usually in the mornings when they are helping others.” from the report
Limited time for emotional support
needs fixingA staff member said staff were mainly managing physical needs and did not always have enough time for social and emotional support.
“I feel we are just doing the basics at the moment. I would like more time to spend with people.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that all staff wear face masks correctly and complete the further infection prevention training?
- 02Has recruiting more staff reduced the waiting times for care, especially in the mornings?
- 03How do staff make sure people receive social and emotional support as well as help with physical needs?
- 04How are infection control practices and staffing levels monitored between inspections?
- 05What were the results of the latest resident and relative feedback, and what actions followed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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, November 2017
Selkirk House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few minor issues identified.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 18 and 19 September 2017. Inspectors reviewed records, toured the home and spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable risk assessments, trained staff and good access to healthcare.
People were treated kindly and respectfully. Care was personalised, people were involved in decisions, complaints were investigated, and activities were available. The home had systems to monitor quality and make improvements.
The inspection was partly prompted by an incident in which a person suffered a serious injury. The inspection did not examine what happened in that incident because it was still under investigation. It did examine falls risks and found these were being managed well.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found that medicines were given safely by trained staff and that administration records were clear.
“People received their medicines safely from staff who had completed medicine training.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring. Inspectors observed staff responding attentively and respecting privacy and dignity.
“People told us staff were always kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's history, relationships, preferences and changing needs. This helped staff provide care in a way that suited each person.
“People's care plans included a person's lifetime history, medical history and relationships important to that person.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives, staff and professionals described the management as approachable. Quality checks were used to identify improvements.
“The quality of the service continued to be monitored. The registered manager was visible in the service.” from the report
Night-time call-bell responses
minorOne person said call bells were not always answered quickly at night, although they said responses were quick during the day. Other people reported that staff responded as quickly as possible.
“One person said they didn't always receive a quick response to call bells at night, however they did during the day.” from the report
Incomplete treatment plans
minorTwo treatment escalation plans were not completed properly. The deputy manager took immediate action to correct this.
“Though two treatment escalation plans were not completed properly, the deputy manager took immediate steps to resolve this issue.” from the report
Mixed views about activities
minorSome people were unsure about replacing the designated activities co-ordinator with activity champions. Some felt the change made activities worse, while others enjoyed the new programme.
“Some people commented that they were unsure about the changes from having a designated activities co-ordinator” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells answered at night, and how do you check this?
- 02How are treatment escalation plans checked to make sure they are complete and reflect each person's wishes?
- 03How are activities planned now, and how do you respond if residents prefer the previous arrangements?
- 04What changes were made after the serious injury incident and the concerns about falls risks?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing the care plan?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, although the circumstances of the serious injury incident were not examined because it was still under investigation. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 November 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 Selkirk House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
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.