CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 61 Track Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments were individual, staffing was sufficient, and medicines were stored and administered safely, although recording of behaviour monitoring needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, social and nutritional needs were assessed and supported. Inspectors found that best interest decisions were not always recorded where required, but evidence was provided after the inspection that these had been completed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect and understood their communication needs. People were involved in decisions and encouraged to maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's routines, preferences and health needs. People took part in activities and community life that matched their interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective management and quality-checking systems. Some minor recording issues had not been identified by audits, and one minor incident had not been notified to CQC.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some records needing improvement.
This was a planned comprehensive inspection on 27 February 2019. It was announced at short notice. Inspectors reviewed information held about the home, two care plans, staff recruitment and training records, and quality checks. They spoke with staff, two people using the service and two relatives.
The home supported four people with autism and/or learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff understood people's needs, medicines were managed safely, and people were helped to stay healthy, take part in activities and maintain relationships.
Inspectors found some minor gaps in recording. Best interest decisions were not always recorded when required, behaviour monitoring records needed improvement, and one incident had not been notified to CQC. The home corrected or agreed to address these points, and sent evidence that the missing best interest decisions had been completed.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 19 August 2016.
Individual risk support
Risk assessments gave staff clear guidance while allowing people to make choices and take appropriate risks.
“Risks to people were minimised by detailed risk assessments, with clear directions for staff and included the positive benefits of the right to take risks.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored and given safely. Plans included detailed information about each person's medicines and how they preferred to take them.
“Each person had a detailed medicines care plan including photographs of medicines and details of how people liked to take them, including for 'as required' medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, communication, choices and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to take part in activities and trips that matched their interests, preferences and cultural needs.
“People were supported to take part in a range of person centred activities and to lead fulfilling lives.” from the report
Communication and choice
Staff used different ways to communicate with people and help them make decisions according to their needs.
“We saw staff used speech, gestures, photographs, objects of reference and facial expressions to support people to make choices according to their communication needs.” from the report
Best interest records
needs fixingBest interest decisions were not always recorded where required. The registered manager later sent evidence that these had been completed.
“We found people usually had their capacity assessed where required in order to determine their ability to provide lawful consent in areas such as medical interventions and finances, however best interest decisions had not always been recorded where required.” from the report
Behaviour monitoring records
needs fixingInspectors identified a minor area where recording needed to improve when monitoring behaviour that might challenge others.
“The deputy manager agreed with us to address one minor area, where recording needed to improve when monitoring behaviour that may challenge others.” from the report
Incident notification
needs fixingOne minor incident between people had not been notified to CQC. The deputy manager said this would be completed in future.
“One minor incident between people was not notified to CQC.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure all required best interest decisions are recorded?
- 02How are behaviour monitoring records checked for completeness and accuracy?
- 03What process do you follow to decide whether an incident must be notified to CQC?
- 04How do you make sure quality audits identify minor recording problems?
- 05How will the support plan reflect my relative's communication needs, preferences and chosen activities?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five CQC questions assessed; inspectors reviewed two people's care plans and selected staff and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 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 61 Track Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2013.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kirklees
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.