CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cleveland Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and there were enough safely recruited staff. Medicines and infection control were managed safely, but one person's choking guidance was not detailed enough until it was updated after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received timely healthcare and support with food, health and daily choices. One worker had not completed induction training, although the registered manager was dealing with this.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw caring and respectful interactions. People and relatives said staff treated people well and supported their privacy, dignity, independence and choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and tailored to people's needs and preferences. People took part in activities, went out where possible, received accessible information and had complaints dealt with.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective systems for checking quality, gathering feedback and following up actions. People, relatives and staff described the home as well-led and positive.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Cleveland Road was rated Good overall; inspectors found caring, person-centred support, with one choking-risk record and one missing staff induction needing attention.
Inspectors visited without notice on 28 September 2021. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training 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 were caring, and their choices, privacy and independence were respected.
Most risks were managed properly and infection control, medicines, staffing and healthcare support were found to be effective. Care plans were detailed and activities reflected people's interests.
There were two points needing attention. One person's care plan did not clearly include advice to reduce a choking risk, although this was corrected after the inspection. One worker had not completed induction training, and the registered manager was addressing this.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions about daily life, including food, routines and activities. Staff also supported people to build independence with tasks and medicines.
“People were empowered through choices offered by staff and they were supported to make decisions for themselves with support from staff.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were given as prescribed, stored safely and checked through audits. Some people were being supported to manage their own medicines more independently.
“Medication administration records we looked at showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen speaking to people in a caring and respectful way. People and relatives gave positive feedback about how staff treated them.
“Interactions between staff and people were genuinely caring and natural.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included detailed information about people's communication, preferences, triggers and support needs. Inspectors saw care being delivered in line with the plans.
“Care plans we looked at were detailed and person-centred.” from the report
Activities and community links
People took part in activities suited to their interests, including walks, cinema visits, arts and crafts, work and day opportunities. The home followed up ideas raised in meetings.
“People were supported to go out to day opportunities as some of these facilities had reopened since the pandemic started.” from the report
Choking guidance
seriousA health professional had advised that one person's bread should be soft with crusts removed, but this was not clearly recorded in the care plan and staff were not aware of it. The care plan was updated after the inspection and the information was to be shared with staff.
“There was insufficient detail in the person's care plan and staff did not demonstrate an awareness of this requirement.” from the report
Staff induction
needs fixingOne worker had been working in the home since early July 2021 but had not yet completed induction training. The registered manager knew about this and was taking action.
“We saw one staff member needed to attend induction training, despite working in the home since the beginning of July 2021.” from the report
- 01How is the updated choking guidance recorded and shared with every member of staff?
- 02How do you check that staff understand the soft-bread and crust-removal instructions?
- 03Has every current worker completed induction training, and how is this monitored for new workers?
- 04How are people's choices about meals, activities and daily routines recorded and reviewed?
- 05How are care plan audits checked to make sure risks, such as choking risks, are not missed?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2021 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, January 2019
Cleveland Road is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some medication errors previously identified.
This was an unannounced inspection. The inspector reviewed information from the provider and other organisations, spoke with people living at the home, the manager and support staff, and examined care records, medicine records and management information.
The home supported people with learning disabilities. There were 11 people living there, and it was registered for up to 13 people. Inspectors found that staffing, risk management, medicines, training and safeguarding arrangements were good.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Inspectors saw a friendly atmosphere, person-centred care, support for independence, activities based on people's preferences and easy read information. The home had a registered manager and systems to check and improve the service.
The home was rated Good in all five areas and overall. This means inspectors found it met the relevant fundamental standards at this inspection. It had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in 2016.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw a warm and friendly relationship between staff and people. Staff understood how to communicate with each person and protected their privacy and dignity.
“We found all the staff to be caring in their approach to the people who lived there and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and take part in everyday tasks. Care was provided in the least restrictive way and focused on helping people become more independent.
“People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible” from the report
Good care planning
Care records described people's needs, preferences and life histories. Easy read plans and other accessible information helped people understand and take part in their care.
“Care plans detailed people's care needs and the provider had started to use easy read care plans.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in college, day services, social groups, holidays and activities such as swimming, dancing and drama. Activities reflected people's routines and interests.
“People had set activities as part of their routines such as drama classes, swimming clubs and dancing.” from the report
Strong oversight
The manager was visible and the home used regular checks and provider audits. People living at the home were involved in meetings and some took on representative or safety roles.
“Systems were in place which continuously assessed and monitored the quality of the service.” from the report
Previous medication errors
seriousThe report says medication errors had occurred. The manager had made changes to reduce the chance of future errors, so families should ask what these changes were and how they are checked.
“There had been medication errors at the service and following this the registered manager had made changes to prevent future incidents” from the report
Short delay with hand towels
minorThere was a delay in providing paper hand towels on the inspection day. The manager put a system in place to keep a spare supply.
“On the day of inspection there had been a delay in the provision of paper hand towels at the service” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the medication errors, and how do you check that medicines are now administered safely?
- 02How is wheelchair access being improved, and when will the planned ramp and fire door work be completed?
- 03How will you use technology to support people's communication, care plans and independence?
- 04How are people involved in writing and reviewing their easy read care plans?
- 05How do you monitor and respond to complaints about parking or noise?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; the report gives 23 November 2018 at the front but refers to 30 November 2018 elsewhere. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 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 Cleveland Road
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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.