Kite Hill Care Home

Updated 25 June 2026

Date of assessment: 8 and 9 July 2026.
Kite Hill is a residential care home providing accommodation for up to 30 people; at the time of the assessment, the service was supporting 29 people. Accommodation is based over three floors and there is a passenger lift in between floors for people with mobility needs. The assessment included 2 on site visits, with further information and evidence reviewed remotely. We completed this assessment as part of our regulatory activity, taking into account the length of time since the service's previous inspection.

We identified 5 breaches of regulations, in relation to consent, safe care and treatment, governance, staffing and failure to notify CQC.

Where people lacked mental capacity to consent to their care and treatment, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had not been completed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The provider did not always ensure all potential risks to people were understood and managed effectively. People’s care plans lacked guidance in relation to the potential risks associated with their diagnosed medical conditions. Medicines were not always managed safely, including some medicines that had not been administered as prescribed and evidence demonstrating that some people had been given medicines that had expired. Systems to ensure that staff received all training relevant to their role were not effective.

The provider failed to operate effective checks of care quality and safety. The provider’s governance processes did not identify the issues we found during this assessment. Quality assurance systems and processes were not effectively implemented to ensure safety and drive improvement.

The home was very clean, well maintained and free from malodours. People and their relatives provided positive feedback about the cleanliness of the service. Staff followed infection prevention and control practices. We observed staff using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), including gloves and aprons, when delivering care.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to concerns found at this assessment in relation to safe and effective staffing and failure to notify.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
 

Updated 25 June 2026

During this assessment, we received feedback from 8 people who use the service and 11 relatives.

People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Comments included, “If I need any help staff are very good”, “I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else, the carers are very caring and friendly, they know how I like things done and will always come and chat to me” and “The staff are so kind and helpful, nothing is too much trouble.”

People told us they had choice and control over aspects of their daily lives, including when they got up and went to bed, what they ate and how they spent their time. People and relatives also spoke positively about the cleanliness of the service and food.

Our observations supported much of this feedback. We saw staff interacting with people warmly and respectfully, supporting independence and responding to people's immediate needs.

However, feedback was not consistently positive. Some relatives raised concerns about the consistency of care, including delays for support to access the toilet and in response to call bells, support with drinks and staff competency when using moving and handling equipment. One relative described the person's care as “a lottery” and raised concerns about their personal care and ensuring they received drinks.

Some people who spent significant time in their bedrooms or were cared for in bed told us they had limited opportunities for meaningful activity and social interaction. One person said they felt isolated at times.

This inspection found that although people generally experienced staff as kind, respectful and caring, the quality and consistency of care was not always met safely or effectively.