CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Colne House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, medicines were managed safely, recruitment was safe and care risks were assessed and monitored.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support. People received help with food, healthcare and oral health, and the home was adapted to meet their needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in care reviews, and staff supported people to communicate in their preferred ways.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships and outings, with easy-read information available.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was visible and provided positive leadership. Inspectors found an established staff team, regular audits, good communication and systems for learning from incidents.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 4 and 5 March 2020. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. Records about care, medicines, staffing and management were also checked.
Inspectors found that people felt safe and received their medicines safely and on time. Staff were trained, the home had safe staffing levels, and risks such as fire safety were monitored. People were supported with healthcare, food, communication and activities.
The care was described as kind, respectful and tailored to each person. The home had an open culture, a stable staff team and regular checks on quality. All five inspection areas were rated Good, as was the overall service.
Safe medicines support
People received medicines safely and on time. Staff were trained and records were accurate, with regular checks by the manager.
“People received their medicines safely and on time.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw a caring team that treated people with dignity and respect. People and relatives also spoke positively about the care.
“We observed a dedicated and caring staff team who treated people with respect.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans explained how each person communicated. Staff used aids, easy-read information and individual knowledge to help people express themselves.
“Staff had supported this person to make a video of their unique signs, that were individual to them, to help current and new staff understand their communication better.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, both at home and in the community. Staffing levels allowed daily outings if people wanted them.
“Staff supported people to lead fulfilling lives and to take part in activities they chose.” from the report
Positive leadership
The manager was visible in the home and led by example. Staff described a supportive culture and worked as an established team.
“The registered manager was committed to providing high-quality, person-centred care and had recruited and retained staff who shared that goal.” from the report
Accessible home
The building had been adapted for people's needs. Inspectors also noted a new wheelchair-adapted car had been bought since the previous inspection.
“The home was a fully accessible building adapted to meet people's needs.” from the report
End of life wishes still being recorded
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. The home was still developing work with people and relatives to record their wishes.
“The home was carrying out a piece of work to support people and their relatives to explore and record their wishes about end of life care.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made in recording each person's wishes about end of life care?
- 02How will you support my relative's individual communication style, including any signs, aids or easy-read information?
- 03Are the same staffing levels and daily activity opportunities available now as those seen during the inspection?
- 04How are medicines, care risks and staff competency checks monitored currently?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in care reviews and given information about changes?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that covered the care, premises and all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 2020 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, with some care records needing updating.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 August 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and professionals. They also reviewed care records, staff files and records about how the home was run.
The home supported up to eight people with learning disabilities, and five people lived there during the inspection. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff understood people's needs and promoted their independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had remained Good since the previous inspection. Inspectors found that it met the relevant legal standards, although some care records were out of date or did not contain all the information staff needed.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that people were safe. Staff could describe how to recognise and report abuse.
“One person who lived there and could verbally tell us, said, "I feel safe and happy here".” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships and staff supporting privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“We observed staff support three people during our inspection and found there was an atmosphere of care and empathy between staff and the people they were supporting.” from the report
Good support with food and health
Food was tailored to people's preferences, and staff encouraged people to drink. Referrals to health professionals were made when appropriate.
“We observed people were able to choose what they liked to eat and their food preferences were recorded in their care plans.” from the report
Activities matched people's interests
People were involved in daily choices and supported to follow their interests and personal goals.
“People were supported to take part in a range of activities and their relatives confirmed this.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible, staff felt able to ask for help, and quality checks were in place.
“There was a clear vision for the service which was to support people in a homely environment and our observations confirmed this had been achieved.” from the report
Some risk information was not linked
needs fixingNot all risks recorded in assessments were cross-referenced in people's support plans. The report said this could lead to inappropriate care by unfamiliar staff.
“Although information in some of these risk assessments had been cross referenced in people's support plans, not all risks to people had been cross referenced, which could pose a risk of inappropriate care by unfamiliar support staff.” from the report
Some records were out of date
needs fixingSome care records contained old information, and information in different sections had not always been added to the support plan.
“Care records contained information on how to support people but some records contained some out of date information.” from the report
A couple of areas needed deeper cleaning
minorMost of the home was clean, but inspectors found a couple of areas that needed a deeper clean.
“There were a couple of areas that required a deeper clean but most of the home was found to be clean and with an adequate supply of personal protective equipment for staff.” from the report
- 01Which care plans and risk assessments were updated after inspectors found that some information was out of date or not cross-referenced?
- 02How are decisions about medicines, mental capacity and best interests now recorded?
- 03What action was taken to give the areas identified by inspectors a deeper clean?
- 04How do you make sure unfamiliar staff can find all the current risk and support information?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in six-monthly care reviews and decisions about activities and daily choices?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 2017 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 Colne House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 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.