CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at York House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, admissions and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 16 December 2020. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control arrangements because the home had a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and infection outbreaks safely. They also found that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
The home was not given an overall rating, or a rating for Safe. This report gives inspectors' findings about infection control only, rather than a full judgement on the quality of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors were given protective equipment and had their temperatures checked when they arrived. Signs explained hand washing, distancing and how to use protective equipment.
“Face masks and aprons were provided to visitors and their temperatures taken on arrival.” from the report
Extra cleaning
The home increased cleaning, including cleaning surfaces that people touched frequently.
“Additional cleaning was taking place, including an increase in cleaning of high touch points.” from the report
Family contact
Residents were supported to keep in touch with relatives by video calls and telephone. Relatives also received regular updates.
“People were supported to stay in touch with their families through face time and telephone calls during visiting restrictions.” from the report
Separate visiting area
The home created a separate entrance and visitor room with screening to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“Adaptations had been made to the service to install a separate visitor entrance into a designated visitor room that included screening to reduce the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and supported to use protective equipment?
- 02How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 03How can residents keep in contact with their families if visiting is restricted?
- 04How does the home manage testing and admissions when there is an infection outbreak?
- 05Is the separate visitor entrance and designated visitor room still being used?
This was a targeted, unannounced inspection of infection prevention and control practices during a coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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.
What inspectors found, May 2019
York House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some concerns about staffing levels and one person's experience at night.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 March 2019. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicine records and documents about how the home was run.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people received care suited to their needs from caring staff. Risks, medicines, staff training and infection control were managed well.
There were some issues to keep under review. One person said the language used by a night staff member made them feel unsafe. Staff also said there were sometimes fewer staff than planned, and one person felt staff did not always have enough time for their social and emotional needs.
The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 31 August 2016. The registered manager had recently moved up from deputy manager and was being supported by senior management.
Personalised care
Staff knew people's individual needs and preferences. Care plans were reviewed, and people were supported to make choices and remain independent.
“People received care that met their individual needs from a team of caring and dedicated staff.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and managed safely. Records showed people received their medicines as prescribed, and staff had regular competence checks.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) were completed correctly and they showed that people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff had induction, regular training, supervision and appraisals. Additional training covered specific care needs such as diabetes and swallowing difficulties.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled in their roles.” from the report
Kind and respectful treatment
Inspectors observed staff reassuring people, offering choices and treating them with dignity. Families also described staff as helpful and welcoming.
“We saw and heard caring and respectful interactions between staff and people, which indicated that this outlook was embedded in the home.” from the report
Night staff behaviour
needs fixingOne person said the language used by a night staff member left them feeling unsafe. Management said they would address staff behaviour through meetings and supervision.
“A person told us that on one occasion the language used by a member of night staff left them feeling unsafe.” from the report
Time for social support
needs fixingOne person felt staff did not always have enough time to respond to their social and emotional needs. An activities coordinator had recently been appointed and was developing a programme based on people's wishes.
“A person told us that care staff did not always have enough time to respond to their social and emotional needs.” from the report
New manager
minorThe registered manager had only recently been promoted into the role. Staff found the management change and recent staff turnover unsettling, although they remained positive about working as a team.
“The registered manager had been in post for a short time at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure there are enough staff on each shift, including at night?
- 02What action was taken after the concern about the language used by a night staff member?
- 03How do you make sure residents receive enough social and emotional support as well as personal care?
- 04What activities are currently available for people who prefer to stay in their rooms or may be socially isolated?
- 05How has the new registered manager been supported, and what changes have been made since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the overall service and both the premises and care provided considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 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.
Every inspection of York House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 2011.
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 Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.