Kirk House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse by staff who were currently employed by Kirk House. There had been a recent safeguarding incident to which the registered manager responded appropriately to. Staff had been recruited in a safe way. There were enough well-trained staff to effectively and safely meet people’s needs. There were processes in place to learn from things which had gone wrong. Following a recent safeguarding incident, the registered manager had put actions in place to mitigate the incident reoccurring.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People said Kirk House was a safe place to live and their concerns were listened to, and actioned if necessary. One person said, "I did have an issue, so I spoke with care staff who told the manager who dealt with it. I have not had care as good as this." Another person said, “I am able to raise any concerns. Staff listen and act on what I say.” A relative told us, "There was a safety aspect of [Relative's name] identified. We made a decision together to make some changes, and since this time there have been no more issues."

Staff had received training to enable them to care for people in a safe way. Following a recent incident at the service, all staff had been tasked with retaking elements of their training to ensure all staff were able to care for people, safely and effectively. Staff told us the management team we always responsive to feedback and suggestions for improvement. One staff member said, “When I have had to raise issues, the manager deals with these, which leads to changes. When there are safeguarding issues, these are discussed, and the lessons are learned by staff.”

Despite a recent safeguarding issue at Kirk House, there was a proactive culture of safety demonstrated across the service, and by the staff who were currently employed by Kirk House. The management team took all concerns very seriously. Policies and processes were shared with people and staff to ensure people’s care needs were effectively met, and there was a culture of shared learning and improvement.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they felt safe. Comments we received included, “They [staff] are very good, and I feel very safe”, “I feel very safe with staff, and they respond as quick as they can when I use the buzzer” and, “They [staff] help me with the hoist which they have had training to use- I always feel safe. The carers help me to move in the bed and are never rough.”

Staff said they knew how to recognise and respond to concerns of abuse, could report any safeguarding concerns and were confident the appropriate action would be taken if they did so. A recent safeguarding issue at the service meant all staff had been retrained in safeguarding and a specific emphasis placed on the importance of this topic. A staff member said, “I’ve recently completed my safeguarding training and if there was an incident, I would report it to a nurse or a senior member of staff. The management are informed, and we record incidents and log everything on our handheld devices.” Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood about the importance of consent and choice.

During the on-site inspection, we observed staff offering help and support to people where needed. Staff were responsive when people requested support. People were spoken with, and treated with kindness.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from abuse and harm and this was reflected by the current staff practices. When incidences occurred, learning was taken and shared with staff to mitigate the risk of further recurrences.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs and they were not left waiting for any prolonged periods of time to receive support. One person said, “There are enough care staff and they do come when I press my buzzer.” People also told us they felt staff were well trained and staff knew their needs well. Another person said, "Staff ask me how I would like to be helped and I tell them about my catheter. The nurses know exactly what they are doing with my catheter care.”

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs, although it was acknowledged, staff were very busy. A staff member said, “We support a lot of people with complex care needs which means carers are very busy. Staff do not rush people but there are time pressures.” The registered manager told us they were aware of some staff feeling such pressures, so they spent time with staff delivering care to identify where the majority of pressures were, and as a result, additional staff were given new roles and responsibilities to ease the strain on staff.

People were not left waiting to receive care and support and staff were attentive to people’s needs.

Recruitment processes were in place to ensure staff were recruited safely, and staff had the correct documentation in place which meant they were assessed as being suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Where staff were not performing or meeting the care duties, appropriate action was taken in line with good practice and the law. Staff received regular supervision which allowed staff to discuss their personal and professional development.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.