CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Castleford Home for Older People
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks, staffing, recruitment, safeguarding, infection control and medicines were generally managed safely, although some topical cream records were incomplete and equipment problems were found.
- Effective?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess the Effective key question. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess the Caring key question. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection, although inspectors observed sensitive and caring interactions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess the Responsive key question. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team carried out audits, developed action plans and encouraged feedback through meetings. However, people had not been invited to complete a satisfaction survey since August 2021.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Castleford Home for Older People was rated Good; inspectors found safer systems and kind care, but noted some equipment, medicines-record and cleanliness issues.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 18 and 19 April 2023. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, toured the building and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with the service. Inspectors found improvements in risk management, medicines systems and quality checks since the previous inspection.
There were still some shortfalls. Records for topical creams were not always signed, one shower room was unclean, and a faulty bath chair meant people on one area could not use the bath. The home introduced extra checks and took immediate action on some issues.
This was not a full inspection of all five areas. The Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried over from the previous inspection, and the overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good.
Risk management
People's individual and environmental risks were assessed, with guidance in care plans for staff to follow.
“Risks to people and the service were assessed and managed.” from the report
Quality checks
The management team used audits, checks and action plans to monitor the service and make improvements.
“The management team carried out a number of audits and checks covering all aspects of the service.” from the report
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw staff treating people sensitively and kindly. Feedback from people and healthcare professionals was positive.
“People were supported in a sensitive and kind manner.” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs, and people said staff usually responded promptly.
“We observed there was an appropriate number of staff on duty to meet people's needs during the inspection.” from the report
Topical cream records
needs fixingSome records did not contain signatures showing that topical creams had been administered. Extra checks were introduced after the inspection.
“We noted there were some omissions in the records for the administration of topical creams.” from the report
Bath and equipment faults
needs fixingPeople on Henthorn Court could not use the bath because of a faulty bath chair. A leaking sluice tank also meant staff had to improvise when using a hoist, which was then taken out of use.
“people living on Henthorn Court were not able to use the bath due to a faulty bath chair.” from the report
Cleanliness
minorOne shower room was unclean and untidy during the inspection. It was cleaned immediately, and further environmental checks were planned.
“we found one shower room had been left unclean and in disarray.” from the report
Satisfaction feedback
minorPeople were asked for their views in meetings, but the home had not carried out a satisfaction survey since August 2021.
“they had not been invited to participate in a satisfaction survey since August 2021.” from the report
- 01Has the faulty bath chair been repaired so people on Henthorn Court can use the bath?
- 02Have the leaking sluice tank and hoist problems been fully resolved?
- 03How are managers checking that topical cream administration charts are completed every time?
- 04How often are cleanliness checks now carried out, and how are problems followed up?
- 05Has the planned satisfaction survey been completed, and how were people's views used?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key-question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 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.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Castleford Home for Older People was rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and effective, but safety checks, medicines records and management systems needed improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 1 and 3 October 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting healthcare professionals. They reviewed care and medicine records, looked around the home and observed care and activities.
People generally felt safe and comfortable. Staff were kind and respectful, and the home supported people's health, food and activities well. The home was clean and well maintained.
Inspectors found important safety gaps. Risk assessments were missing for two people's healthcare conditions. Medicines were not always handled or recorded safely. Three of the four support plans checked needed updating, although these issues were addressed after the first day of the inspection.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good. The previous overall rating was Good, so the overall rating had fallen.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives praised the staff's kindness. Inspectors saw warm, friendly interactions and positive relationships.
“We observed staff interacted with people in a warm and friendly manner” from the report
Good health support
Staff understood people's health needs and made timely referrals. Visiting healthcare professionals spoke positively about the service.
“People received appropriate support to ensure their healthcare needs were met.” from the report
Clean and maintained home
The home was clean, well maintained and had infection control checks in place.
“People and their relatives said the home had a good level of cleanliness and was well maintained.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities linked to their interests and were supported to keep in touch with others.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities that were socially and culturally important to them.” from the report
Missing risk assessments
seriousTwo people did not have assessments covering risks linked to their healthcare conditions. Staff therefore lacked guidance on how to respond to those risks.
“staff had not assessed all areas of risk for two people using the community beds.” from the report
Medicine records and handling
seriousPrescribed creams were not managed consistently. Inspectors also found unclear dose records and an incorrect medicine name in one protocol.
“Staff did not always handle medicines safely, however there were examples of medicines being managed well.” from the report
Quality checks did not prevent repeat problems
needs fixingThe home's checks had found some shortfalls, but these were not always fixed and kept fixed. A new quality system was planned but had not been shown during the inspection.
“The provider's systems to review the quality of care were not always effective.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
needs fixingInspectors saw enough staff during the visits, but some people and relatives felt staffing was not enough for the level of care needed.
“I find there aren't enough carers [staff] for the level of care required.” from the report
- 01What was changed after the inspection to make sure every person's healthcare risks have a current risk assessment?
- 02How are prescribed creams and medicines now checked, recorded and signed for?
- 03How do you check that care plans are updated promptly when a person's needs change?
- 04What has happened to the new quality assurance system, and how do you know improvements are being maintained?
- 05How are staffing levels and the deployment of the management team reviewed when people need more help?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the home and the care provided; the previous rating was Good and Safe and Well-led had since fallen to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 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 Castleford Home for Older People
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Castleford Home for Older People →
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Castleford Home for Older People →
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.