CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Amelia House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by detailed risk assessments, safe recruitment and enough consistent staff. Medicines were generally handled safely, but errors in electronic records during the pandemic led to extra checks and paper records.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and skills needed to support people. The home worked well with other professionals and helped people improve their physical and emotional wellbeing.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- People were treated with exceptional kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices, express their views and become more independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were highly personalised and reflected how people wanted to live. Staff supported communication, relationships, activities and complaints in ways suited to each person.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a strong person-centred culture and managers learned from incidents. Provider audits were completed but inspectors said they needed strengthening for this type of service.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found highly person-centred support, with some medicines and audit records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 14 and 24 September 2020. Inspectors spoke with four people, two relatives, six staff members and two visiting professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, staff, training and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Caring was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found staff were kind, respectful and focused on helping people build confidence, gain skills and become more independent.
There were some issues with electronic medicines records during the pandemic. The home changed to paper records and added checks after errors were found. Management audits were also said to need strengthening. The previous inspection was not rated because nobody was living there at that time.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found staff were exceptionally caring and treated people as individuals. People and relatives said the care exceeded expectations.
“People were treated with the utmost respect dignity, empathy, and compassion.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, take positive risks and develop everyday skills. Staff worked towards each person's goals, including greater independence.
“People were supported to take positive risks towards independence, using a creative and comprehensive approach to risk taking.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records described people's communication methods, preferences and goals in detail. Staff adapted support to each person's needs and interests.
“Everyone received exceptionally well-planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was unique to and inclusive for them.” from the report
Strong partnership working
The home worked closely with health and social care professionals. Inspectors found this helped support transitions and people's physical and emotional wellbeing.
“There were many examples of excellent person-centred joint working.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingThere had been errors with the electronic medicines administration records during the pandemic. The home moved to paper records and introduced extra checks, but families should ask whether this remains reliable.
“There had been some issues with this during the pandemic, so they had reverted to using paper-based MAR.” from the report
Management audits
needs fixingQuality audits were taking place, but inspectors said the provider's audits did not yet fully reflect this type of service. Management was working to improve them.
“The provider audits were regularly undertaken but required strengthening to be reflective of this type of service.” from the report
- 01What caused the medicines record errors during the pandemic, and what checks are now used to prevent them?
- 02Can families see relevant parts of care records or medicines records, with the person's lawful consent?
- 03How have the provider's quality audits been strengthened since this inspection?
- 04How are restrictive practices and behaviour-modifying medicines reviewed and reduced?
- 05How will the same core staff support someone if they move from the home into a community setting?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, with infection prevention and control checked under Safe because of coronavirus risks. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 October 2020 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, January 2020
Not sufficient evidence to rate; inspectors found systems in place, but no residents were living there to show how care worked in practice.
Two inspectors visited on 5 September 2019. They spoke with managers and care staff and reviewed policies, staff files, safety records and two sample care records. No one was living at the home, so they could not speak with residents or observe care.
The inspectors found systems in place to protect people from abuse, manage risks, recruit staff, store medicines and keep the building clean and safe. Staff had received induction, training and ongoing support. The home had plans for person-centred care, communication, activities and people’s involvement in decisions.
The home was not given a rating for any of the five areas or overall. This was because there was not enough evidence from people's actual experiences. The previous service, when it had a different name, had been rated inadequate with several breaches. The inspectors found improvements and said the provider was no longer in breach.
Safety systems
The home had arrangements for safeguarding, risk assessments, safe recruitment, medicines and emergency situations.
“There were systems in place to help keep people safe.” from the report
Staff preparation
The staff records checked showed induction, training and ongoing support. Staff said they had the skills and support needed for their roles.
“The staff files we looked at confirmed staff had completed an induction and received regular training and ongoing support.” from the report
Person-centred planning
The sample care records included detailed information about people's backgrounds, preferences, communication and support needs.
“The mock care records we looked at were written in a person-centred way.” from the report
Improved management systems
The provider had quality audits, building checks, current policies and ways for people, relatives and staff to give feedback.
“There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Care not yet tested with residents
minorNo residents were living at the home, so inspectors could not confirm whether the planned care achieved good outcomes or promoted choice and independence in practice.
“As no one was living at Amelia House we were unable to evidence whether outcomes for people reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support” from the report
Some fire actions awaited occupancy
needs fixingMost possible actions from the fire risk assessment had been completed, but some could not be completed until people lived at the home.
“Until people lived at Amelia House some actions could not be completed, such as appointing fire wardens.” from the report
- 01How will you monitor the quality and safety of care once the first residents move in?
- 02Which fire safety actions were still outstanding, and when will they be completed?
- 03Who will manage the home, and when will that manager apply to register with the CQC?
- 04How will you check that each resident's care plan reflects their choices, communication needs and goals?
- 05How will residents and their relatives give feedback or make a complaint when the home opens?
This was a follow-up inspection after the previous inadequate rating; inspectors reviewed all five areas, but the ratings could not be given because no one was living at the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 2020 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 Amelia House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2020Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Insufficient evidence to rateSafe: Insufficient evidence to rateEffective: Insufficient evidence to rateCaring: Insufficient evidence to rateResponsive: Insufficient evidence to rateWell-led: Insufficient evidence to rate
- September 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 February 2014.
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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Wakefield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.