CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Botham Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with individual risk assessments and suitable staffing. Medicines were managed safely overall, but some recording needed clearer directions, doses and timings.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans contained useful detail. Staff were trained and supported, and people generally enjoyed the food, although some concerns about meals were identified.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. They knew people's preferences and supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff knew people's relationships, interests and cultural preferences. Activities, communication support and complaints handling were viewed positively.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team provided consistent oversight, carried out regular quality checks and involved families and staff. Staff felt supported and listened to.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Botham Hall rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some medicines records needing clearer detail.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors spoke with 10 people, six relatives and five staff. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff knew them well, and relatives were positive about the care and communication.
Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely overall, but records for medicines given as needed did not always state the exact directions or dose. They recommended improving these records. Some food, shower arrangements and parts of the building also needed attention.
Individual risk management
Risks were assessed for each person and staff understood how to provide safe care. Inspectors found that equipment and support matched people's needs.
“Risks to people were individually assessed and monitored and staff understood how to care for people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and treated them with patience, dignity and respect. The atmosphere was described as calm, friendly and homely.
“People enjoyed the friendly, homely atmosphere within the home.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included detailed information about how people preferred to be supported. Staff understood people's personalities, preferences and communication needs.
“People's individual support and care plans contained good levels of detail for staff to be able to support them as they would prefer.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and infection prevention measures were in place. Inspectors found a welcoming environment with accessible communal areas.
“The environment was clean and homely with a welcoming calm atmosphere.” from the report
Good oversight
The management team carried out regular checks and worked closely with staff, families and other professionals. Staff said they felt supported and valued.
“Quality checks were consistently carried out and there was close oversight of the service.” from the report
As-needed medicine records
needs fixingSome records did not clearly explain the directions or exact dose for medicines given as needed. Inspectors recommended improving the recording so staff had clearer information.
“For medicine needed 'as directed' or 'as required' it was not always clear about the directions or exact dose to be given.” from the report
Medicine timings and checks
needs fixingInspectors discussed recording exact times for time-specific medicines and medicines needing a minimum gap between doses. Handwritten records did not show a second check.
“Medicine records were mostly well maintained, although handwritten medicine records were completed by only one member of staff.” from the report
Food suitability
minorMost people enjoyed the meals, but some were less satisfied. One person had difficulty chewing a meal, which inspectors asked the management team to review.
“The food's moderate, some is not very good. I like the ice cream.” from the report
Building improvements
minorSome areas needed refurbishment. The management team knew about this and said work was being discussed and carried out.
“Some areas of the home were in need of refurbishment and the management team were aware of this; with work in progress discussed at staff meetings.” from the report
Recorded shower preferences
minorRecords did not always show that people's preferred shower frequency had been met. Staff said people's hygiene needs were met daily, either with a shower or a wash.
“Records showed people's preferences were not always met in relation to frequency of having a shower.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to records for medicines given as needed, including the exact dose and directions?
- 02How do you record and check the exact times for medicines that are time-specific or need a minimum gap between doses?
- 03How do you make sure meals are suitable for people who have difficulty chewing, and how are food preferences reviewed?
- 04How do you record and meet each person's preferred frequency for showers or personal washing?
- 05Which areas of the home still need refurbishment, and what is the timetable for completing the work?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, the care provided and the premises, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 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.
Every inspection of Botham Hall
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 June 2020.
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.