CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Carlton Specialist Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found detailed, individual risk assessments, suitable staffing and safe medicines arrangements. The home also had fire safety checks and personal evacuation plans.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had specialist training, supervision and appraisals. Mental capacity decisions and restrictions on people's liberty were legally authorised and handled in the least restrictive way.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind and compassionate. Inspectors saw people being supported with privacy, dignity, communication and independence in mind.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and person-centred. People were supported to choose activities in the home and community, and relatives were involved in reviews and kept informed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager knew people well and the home used audits to monitor quality. Inspectors noted some records and meetings could be improved, but found the overall management systems effective.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some minor improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 January 2019. The inspector spoke with managers, staff and relatives, and reviewed care plans, records, audits and information from other organisations.
The home supported up to 10 people with autism and learning disabilities. Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, safe medicines arrangements, suitable staffing and trained staff. People were treated with respect, supported to be independent and involved in activities that matched their routines and preferences.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was meeting the relevant legal standards. The overall rating remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection.
Detailed risk planning
Risks were assessed for each person and staff were given clear instructions on how to support people safely without unnecessarily limiting their freedom.
“Risk assessments were reviewed regularly. These documents were individualised and provided staff with a clear description of any risks and guidance on the support people needed to manage these.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans explained what each person could do for themselves and where they needed help. Activities were based on people's preferences and routines.
“Care plans were recorded in a person-centred way and were clear about which part of the task the person could do for themselves and where they might need support.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Relatives described staff as caring and compassionate. Staff understood people's communication styles and protected their privacy, dignity and rights.
“People's equality, diversity and human rights were maintained and our discussions with staff confirmed they understood the importance of respecting these rights.” from the report
Good family involvement
Relatives were invited to care reviews and were able to read care plans. They said communication with the home was good.
“Every relative we spoke with told us how the service always involved them, and communication was good.” from the report
Specialist staff support
Staff received training for the needs of people living with autism and learning disabilities, including specialist positive behaviour support training.
“Staff received ongoing support from the management team through a programme of supervisions and appraisals and they had been trained to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to care for people.” from the report
Hand sanitiser fault
minorOne hand sanitiser dispenser was not working. The manager agreed to address this with staff immediately.
“There was one area where the hand sanitiser was not dispensing gel and the registered manager agreed to address this with staff immediately.” from the report
Repetitive appraisals
minorAppraisals were detailed but used the same objectives for staff. Inspectors said more individual feedback would make them more useful.
“Although detailed, they were very repetitive as objectives for staff for the coming year were the same” from the report
Some records and meetings needed improvement
minorSome activity records were not detailed enough, and staff meeting records showed low attendance. The provider had identified actions to improve this.
“They identified some of the records staff completed showing what activities people had taken part in could have been more detailed.” from the report
Limited homely feel
minorThe communal areas were safe and designed for the people living there, but inspectors felt the setting looked less homely. A more sensory garden was planned.
“This made the environment look not very "homely".” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to make sure all hand sanitiser dispensers work?
- 02How have staff appraisals been made more individual and less repetitive?
- 03How do you make sure activities are recorded in enough detail and reflect what each person enjoyed or achieved?
- 04What has happened with the planned improvements to the garden and sensory activities?
- 05How are staff encouraged to attend monthly team meetings and stay up to date with care changes?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole care home, including the premises and care provided, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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 Carlton Specialist Care Centre
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Carlton Specialist Care Centre →
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 November 2010.
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.