The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Keldgate Manor

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Keldgate Manor, Beverley, Humberside, HU17 8HU (01482) 882418

Provided and run by:
Keldgate Manor Estates Limited

All Inspections

3 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 3 December 2015 and was unannounced. We previously visited the service on 10 July 2014 and made a recommendation about how staff shared information with people who lived at the home and how specific care needs were met. We visited the service again on 10 March 2015 and made recommendations about managing safeguarding issues and how staff training was recorded.

The home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 35 people who require assistance with personal care, some of whom may be living with dementia. On the day of the inspection there were 19 people living at the home. The home is situated in Beverley in the East Riding of Yorkshire. It is close to the centre of the town and town centre facilities. There is a car park for visitors and staff.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); the registered manager had been in post for many years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us that they felt safe whilst they were living at Keldgate Manor. People were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because the registered provider had effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm. Staff also told us that they would not hesitate to use the home’s whistle blowing procedure if needed.

Staff confirmed that they received induction training when they were new in post and told us that they were happy with the training provided for them. The training records evidenced that staff had completed training that equipped them to carry out their roles effectively. Staff had received training on the administration of medication and people told us they were happy with how they received their medicines.

New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies and this ensured that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed. On the day of the inspection we saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people’s individual needs.

People told us that they received the support they required from staff and that their care plans were reviewed and updated as required. People told us that staff were caring and that their privacy and dignity was respected.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and people told us they were happy with the meals and refreshments provided. We saw that people were encouraged to drink throughout the day to promote hydration.

There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and people told us they were confident that any complaints or concerns they raised would be listened to. There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who received a service, and this feedback was used to identify improvements that needed to be made.

The quality audits undertaken by the registered manager were designed to identify any areas that needed to improve in respect of people’s care and welfare.

10 March 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 10 July 2014. After that inspection we received concerns in relation to the care of one person. As a result we undertook a focused inspection to look into those concerns. This report only covers our findings in relation to those concerns. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Keldgate Manor on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection took place on 10 March 2015 and was unannounced.

The service is registered to provide accommodation for a maximum of 35 people, some of whom are living with a dementia type illness. On the day of the inspection there were 28 people living at the home. Most people are accommodated in single rooms and some have en-suite facilities. The home is in Beverley, a town in the East Riding of Yorkshire. It is close to local amenities and has a car park.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff were recruited safely; checks were carried out to ensure that only people who were considered suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. However, there are lessons to be learned from a safeguarding investigation that is being carried out at the home.

Staff undertook a variety of training programmes at the time of their induction to the role and then as refresher training. This included training on safeguarding adults from abuse. However, records of staff training needed to be more robust.

Staff attended supervision meetings with a manager when they were able to discuss any concerns they had and their training needs.

10 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. The inspection was unannounced.

At the last inspection on 5 November 2013 we found that the provider had met the standards that we reviewed.

Keldgate Manor is a residential care home that is registered to provide accommodation for up to 35 older people, some of whom may have a dementia related condition. On the day of the inspection there were 28 people living at the home. Some double rooms were used as single rooms.

There was a registered manager in post as the time of this inspection and they had been in post since the home was first registered. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People told us that they felt safe living at the home. We found that staff had a good knowledge of how to keep people safe from harm and that there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.  There was a low staff turnover and therefore a consistent staff group. This meant that people were supported by staff who knew them well. Staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and a system had been introduced to ensure that these were known by staff and met on a daily basis. People told us that they were satisfied with the meals provided by the home.

We observed good interactions between people who used the service and staff on the day of the inspection.  People told us that staff were caring and this was supported by most of the relatives we spoke with, as well as health and social care professionals. People had been consulted about their end of life care and clear records were held.

We identified some areas of improvement that needed to be made by staff in respect of people’s individual needs being met. Although we received some comments from relatives and health care professionals about the lack of social stimulation, we were told by the registered manager, care manager and staff that there was a range of activities available to people and we saw some of these taking place on the day of the inspection.

People’s comments and complaints were responded to appropriately. Arrangements were in place to seek the feedback of people and their relatives about the service provided, both through surveys and the setting up of a home committee. People reported they were involved in making decisions about the service they received . 

Staff received a range of training opportunities and told us they were supported so they could deliver effective care; this included staff supervision, appraisals and staff meetings. 

The home was well led and we found that the registered manager and care manager learned from incidents at the home and from good practice guidance.

29 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People who lived in the home told us they were happy and felt safe; they felt their needs were met.

People were supported to have their needs met through a care planning process which had recently been updated and which contained their personal choices and preferences.

Staff in the home liaised with other professionals and supported people to have their health needs met.

There were quality monitoring systems in place in the home to assess the care provided.

2 May 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook this visit to follow up on areas of previous non compliance. We found that the provider had taken actions to address the non compliance and were now compliant in both areas reviewed.

We found that overall the home was clean throughout and people who lived in the home told us that they were happy with the standards of cleanliness.

Staff had received training in infection control and reflected a good knowledge of the procedures and equipment to use in the home.

Domestic staff were employed in the home and schedules were in place to ensure that all areas were addressed.

The majority of polices and procedures were in place although some required to be updated. Quality assurance audits were not completed on the environment.

Maintenance work had been undertaken to ensure the home remained in good order and this included the annual checks on systems, for example, the gas safety checks.

3 January 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us that staff were polite and respected them, with staff being able to give good examples of practices that helped to maintain people's privacy. People were supported to have their needs met through a care planning process with staff being kept up to date about changes in the home.

Staff were aware of how to handle any concerns or safeguarding issues and people told us they felt safe in the home.Staffing levels were maintained by the staff in the home without the use of agency or bank staff.

Infection control systems were not followed correctly to ensure that people were fully protected from the risk of infection. Rusty broken and dirty equipment was found.

The quality assurance system had not been used in the last year to ensure that management were aware of how the home was meeting the required standards.

18 January 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke to one person who lived at the home and their relative. They were both aware that there was a care plan in place and said that they had advised other people living at the home to ask to see their care plan. They were satisfied that they were able to make decisions and choices about their day to day lives.

People told us that staff were pleasant, considerate and had a good sense of humour. They said that they were encouraged to make decisions about their day to day lives, such as when to get up, when to go to bed, what to wear and where to spend the day and that these times were flexible.

People said that there was a choice of food at mealtimes and that meals at the home were good. They said that staff responded quite quickly to call bells and that they thought staff supported people with dementia very well.

One person told us that the home had been quick to find somewhere for them to store their mobility scooter.

People said that they felt safe living at the home and that the home was maintained in a clean condition.

People told us that staff seemed to have the skills needed to carry out their role and that, when they had raised issues with manager, they had been very helpful.