CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cookridge Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Cookridge Court: inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly good COVID-19 controls, but social distancing was not possible in a dementia communal area.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 January 2022. It followed concerns about visiting arrangements and looked at infection prevention and control, as well as whether staff shortages were affecting care.
Inspectors found regular COVID-19 testing, visitor screening, updated personal protective equipment training and good communication with relatives. They were also assured about safe admissions, infection outbreak management, hygiene and the use of protective equipment.
The communal area in the dementia unit did not allow people to socially distance. Inspectors gave the provider resources to improve this. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Testing and visitor checks
The home had regular COVID-19 testing for people, staff and visitors. Visitors were screened and had to show vaccination evidence and a negative lateral flow test before entry.
“The provider had implemented a regular programme of COVID-19 testing for people in the home, staff, and visitors.” from the report
Support during isolation
The home used individual risk assessments to consider the effect of isolation on people's mental health.
“The provider had developed person centred risk assessments to address and mitigate the detrimental impact that being in isolation was having on people's mental health.” from the report
Communication with families
People and relatives were kept updated about national guidance and changes to visiting arrangements.
“The provider kept people using the service and their relatives regularly updated in relation to national guidance and changes to internal policy, such as visiting arrangements.” from the report
PPE training
Staff had updated training in using PPE, and their competence was checked. Inspectors saw most staff wearing it correctly.
“Staff had received updated training on the use of PPE and their competency in this area was checked” from the report
Healthcare support and staffing
The home had good working relationships with healthcare professionals. Inspectors found that workforce pressures were not harming the service at the time of the visit.
“Workforce pressures were not having a detrimental impact on the delivery of the service.” from the report
Dementia unit social distancing
needs fixingThe communal area in the dementia unit was not suitable for social distancing. Inspectors signposted the provider to resources to improve its approach.
“The communal area in the dementia unit did not facilitate people to socially distance.” from the report
Shielding and distancing assurance
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that shielding and social distancing rules were being met. This appears to relate to the layout of the dementia unit's communal area.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the dementia unit communal area to allow better social distancing?
- 02How do you currently screen visitors, and what testing or vaccination requirements apply?
- 03How do you support residents' mental health when they need to isolate?
- 04How do you check that staff are using PPE correctly in practice?
- 05Are there currently any staffing pressures, and could these affect people's care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 February 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.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care and clear improvements, but management systems were not yet consistently reliable.
This was a focused inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors visited on 29 July 2020 and gathered further information by telephone and remotely until 17 August 2020. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, observed care, and checked medicines, care records, staff records and management audits.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff, prompt responses to call bells, safe medicines management, suitable infection control and better risk assessments. One problem with creams not being locked away and stored at the right temperature was corrected immediately.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led, although it had improved from Inadequate. Audits and action plans were now in place, but fluid records were not always completed and action plans did not always show completion dates. The overall rating remained Requires Improvement because inspectors wanted to see that improvements were sustained over a longer period.
The home was no longer in breach of the regulations identified at the previous inspection. CQC said it would continue monitoring the home and could inspect sooner if it received concerning information.
Improved risk management
Care plans and risk assessments contained more detail and were updated when people's needs changed.
“Risk assessments and care plans were detailed and informed staff of people's specific needs.” from the report
Infection control
Staff used protective equipment, cleaning had been increased and a separate unit was used for people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
“During the Covid-19 pandemic the home had closed one unit to support those people with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 cases” from the report
Supportive leadership
People and relatives described the manager as approachable. Staff had meetings and supervision to support communication with managers.
“People and their relatives said the registered manager was approachable and listened to their concerns.” from the report
Incomplete fluid records
needs fixingFood and fluid charts were not always completed, and individual fluid targets were not recorded. This could make it harder to check whether people were drinking enough.
“food and fluid charts were not always completed and there was no evidence recorded of people's individual fluid target.” from the report
Audit actions not dated
minorSome action plans did not show when actions should be completed. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“Action plans did not always have a completion date recorded.” from the report
Creams not stored correctly
needs fixingSome prescribed creams were not locked away and room temperatures had not been checked. The issue was corrected during the inspection.
“We found prescribed creams in people's rooms which had not been locked away and no room temperatures had been taken” from the report
- 01How are staff now recording each person's fluid intake and individual fluid target?
- 02How do managers check that audit actions have completion dates and are completed?
- 03What checks are now made to ensure prescribed creams are locked away and stored at the correct temperature?
- 04How will you show that the improvements found at this inspection have continued over time?
- 05How are you continuing family contact and activities when visits or gatherings are restricted?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led during the COVID-19 pandemic; the other key questions were not covered and the overall rating remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 October 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.
Every inspection of Cookridge Court
9 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 September 2012.
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 Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 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.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.