CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ann Mangham
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention arrangements, testing, vaccinations, PPE, social distancing, safe admissions and outbreak management. They found some bathing areas were not clean and that staff were not consistently wearing masks as required.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Ann Mangham was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls but some cleanliness and mask-wearing problems.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 February 2022. CQC looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements for testing, vaccinations, PPE, social distancing, safe admissions and managing possible outbreaks. Visitors had to test negative, have their temperature checked and wear PPE.
The home had avoided a COVID-19 outbreak during the pandemic. However, some shower and bathing areas were not clean, with broken seals and mould. Staff were also not always wearing face masks as required. These issues were addressed or being dealt with after inspectors raised them.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not provide a full quality rating for the home, and only the safe question was looked at.
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections. The home had avoided a COVID-19 outbreak throughout the pandemic.
“The provider had managed to prevent an outbreak of COVID-19 in the home throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors had to follow safety steps, including testing, temperature checks and wearing PPE. The home also provided a private space for visits and supported other ways to stay in touch.
“Visitors to the home were required to follow a procedure, which included testing negative for COVID-19 beforehand, having their body temperature screened and wearing person protective equipment.” from the report
Testing and vaccinations
People and staff were part of regular COVID-19 testing and had received vaccinations. The home also had sufficient PPE for staff.
“People and staff were part of a regular programme of testing for COVID-19 and they had received their vaccinations.” from the report
Cleanliness of bathing areas
needs fixingSome showering and bathing areas were not always clean. Broken seals and mould were found, although the provider said it was dealing with this immediately after the inspection.
“We made observations of the showering and bathing areas in the home and found these were not always clean. Seals were broken and mould had appeared in some areas.” from the report
Face mask use
needs fixingStaff were not consistently wearing face masks as required. The home addressed this on the day of the inspection.
“Staff were not consistently wearing face masks as required. This was addressed on the day of inspection.” from the report
- 01Have all the broken seals and mould in the showering and bathing areas now been dealt with?
- 02How do you check that staff consistently wear face masks when required?
- 03What measures are in place if COVID-19 creates staff pressures at the home?
- 04What are the current rules for visitors, including testing, PPE and vaccination evidence?
- 05When was the home last assessed for the other areas of care that were not covered by this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; only Safe was inspected and it was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 2022 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, February 2020
Ann Mangham was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care that supported independence.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 20 January 2020. One inspector spoke with four people and five staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were settled, and staff understood their needs, routines and mental health.
Inspectors found that safeguarding concerns were dealt with properly, medicines were managed safely, and staffing was sufficient. People were supported to make choices, use the local community and live as independently as possible.
The previous inspection, published in June 2017, also rated the home Good. This inspection found that the ratings remained the same.
Staff know people well
People were settled and staff understood their individual routines and needs. Staff offered reassurance while encouraging people to think through problems.
“People were very settled, and staff clearly knew them very well.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored and recorded safely. Staff recorded why and when as-required medicines were given, and their medicines training was up to date.
“All staff were competent in administering medicine and had up to date training.” from the report
Independence and choice
People chose how to spend their days and were encouraged to use the community independently. Staff gave help discreetly when it was needed.
“Staff provided minimal and discreet assistance where needed, such as supporting people to prepare their own meals.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The home checked care plans, infection control and medicines regularly. The manager reviewed these checks and followed up issues and actions.
“Care plans, infection control practice and medicines were all audited regularly.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative if their mental health or behaviour changed?
- 02How much help would my relative receive with medicines, and how would you review whether that support was still wanted?
- 03How do you make sure staffing remains sufficient if my relative's needs become greater?
- 04How would you involve our family in care decisions and arrange advocacy if my relative needed it?
- 05How would you support my relative to keep family relationships and continue activities in the local community?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all ratings were reviewed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 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 Ann Mangham
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 2011.
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.