CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Legard
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks and staff who understood safeguarding. Medicines were managed safely, and risk assessments supported people to take positive risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had mandatory and specialist training, regular supervision and good handovers. Healthcare professionals were involved, and people's dietary and health needs were recorded and followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people's personalities, interests and routines. People were treated with dignity and staff used each person's preferred way of communicating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People had detailed, person-centred care plans and six-monthly reviews. They were supported to take part in activities, maintain relationships and raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff described the manager as approachable and supportive. The provider used feedback, monthly audits and action plans to monitor the quality of the home.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 11 and 16 January 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, healthcare professionals and staff. They also reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, complaints, training and quality checks.
The home remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection in January 2016. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems and detailed risk assessments. People were treated with dignity, involved in decisions and supported to pursue their interests.
Inspectors also found strong links with healthcare professionals and good support for people's complex health, communication and nutritional needs. The manager and provider used meetings, feedback and audits to monitor and improve the service.
Safe staffing and safeguarding
Inspectors found enough staff and appropriate checks before staff started work. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“People who used the service were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who understood the importance of protecting them from harm.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were obtained, stored, given and disposed of appropriately. Records were complete, including plans for medicines used only when needed.
“Medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of appropriately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's personalities, preferences and communication methods. People were listened to and involved in decisions about their lives.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in decisions about the way their support was provided.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed information about people's needs, routines, likes and dislikes. People were supported to take part in activities and positive risk-taking.
“Care records were extremely person-centred and detailed the levels of care and support each person required.” from the report
Good oversight
The home sought people's views through questionnaires and meetings. Regular audits covered care plans, risks, health and safety, and medicines.
“People were asked to provide feedback on the service through questionnaires and face-to-face meetings.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage the risks linked to my relative's specific needs while still supporting their independence?
- 02What specialist training do staff have for my relative's health, communication, medicines and nutritional needs?
- 03How would staff learn and follow my relative's preferred way of communicating?
- 04How are medicines used only when needed recorded and reviewed for my relative?
- 05How would my relative and our family be involved in six-monthly care reviews and in raising concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection over two days covering all five areas; the report says the previous January 2016 rating was Good and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 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 The Legard
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Kingston upon Hull, City of
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 £1,350 a week. 12 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“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.