CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Blencathra House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding and people's risks. Inspectors found safe medicines management, enough staff, suitable recruitment checks and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff received relevant training, people were supported with food and drink and healthcare referrals were made when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and available. Inspectors observed staff supporting people's dignity, comfort and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and communication needs. People had choices, activities and support to maintain relationships with family and friends.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture and governance systems were in place. However, some care checks were carried out but not always recorded, leading to a recommendation about record keeping.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but record keeping was not always effective.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered in February 2023. It was unannounced and took place on 23 and 26 May 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments, good infection control and appropriate access to healthcare.
People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Care plans were person-centred, activities were available and people were supported to make choices. Inspectors did find some recording problems, so they recommended that the home improve how it monitors records.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and found that medicines were generally managed safely by staff assessed as competent.
“There were enough staff employed to ensure people's needs were being met daily.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors also observed caring interactions and support for dignity and independence.
“People and their relatives told us staff were caring and treated people with respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were regularly reviewed and reflected people's preferences, choices and communication needs.
“Care plans were up to date, regularly reviewed and person centred to ensure people's preferences and choices were being upheld.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were offered a range of activities and trips. The home supported people to keep in touch with family and friends.
“A range of activities were available for people to reduce social isolation and for people to take part in hobbies they enjoyed.” from the report
Care checks were not always recorded
needs fixingSome hourly checks and four-hourly repositioning records were missing, even though the checks were being completed. Inspectors found no impact on people's safety or skin condition, but recommended stronger monitoring of records.
“We found generally the home was well managed. However, we did identify some recording issues which meant documentation was not always effective.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure hourly checks are recorded every time?
- 02How do you now record four-hourly repositioning and check that this has happened?
- 03How will managers monitor the record-keeping recommendation?
- 04How are medicines given at the right time, including the exception identified during the inspection?
- 05Which activities and healthcare arrangements would be available for my relative's specific needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the home’s infection prevention and control arrangements; it was the first inspection of this newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 2023 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 Blencathra House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2023
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 2023.
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 Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 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.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.