CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Corinthian House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks, medicines, infection control and recruitment were managed safely. However, repositioning records and records of actions after some accidents or injuries were not always complete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received better support with food, drinks and weight monitoring, and staff training and support had improved. Inspectors still found shortfalls in oral health, daily mouth and teeth care, and access to a dentist.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described and observed as kind, respectful and supportive. Some people and relatives said showers were still not frequent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Activities, outings and support for communication were available, and end-of-life care received positive feedback. Inspectors found that some people stayed in bed or in their rooms without it being clear whether this was their choice or assessed need, with fewer opportunities for interaction.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks had become more regular, but they had not led to consistently complete and timely care records. The management systems were still being embedded, and there was no registered manager in post during the inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Requires Improvement; inspectors found good safe, effective, caring and responsive care, but weaknesses in management oversight and care records remained.
This was a follow-up inspection after the previous Requires Improvement rating. Inspectors visited on 13 and 27 July 2023, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home had improved in several areas. Inspectors rated Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive as Good. Medicines and individual risks were managed safely, people received kind care, and activities and communication were available.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement because management systems were not yet fully established or effective. Daily care records were sometimes incomplete or lacking detail. There were also mixed views about staffing levels, and some people did not have regular showers or enough interaction when staying in their rooms.
The home was still in breach of Regulation 17 on good governance. The provider was no longer in breach of Regulations 9 and 12, which means improvements had been made in person-centred care and risk management.
Safer care and medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely and that individual risks were assessed and monitored. There had also been better monitoring of choking risks, weight loss and PEG care.
“Medicines were managed safely. Individual risks to people were effectively assessed and monitored.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care. Inspectors saw patient and supportive interactions and a friendly atmosphere.
“The home had a friendly, welcoming atmosphere and staff were professional, kind and caring.” from the report
Improved nutrition support
Staff knew people's food preferences and dietary needs. Weight loss was monitored more closely and actions were followed up.
“There were improvements in the way people were supported with their nutritional needs.” from the report
Activities and communication
The home offered games, outings and visits, and staff adapted communication where needed. A resident ambassador also helped gather people's views.
“Organised activities were available, such as games, and people enjoyed outings to local places as well as visits from an assistance dog.” from the report
Incomplete care records
seriousDaily records did not always show clearly and promptly what care people needed and received. The home's audits had identified this but had not fixed it consistently.
“Recording of people's daily care needed to be more consistent and detailed.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousThe systems for checking quality and managing risks were not yet robust or fully embedded. This was the reason the home remained in breach of Regulation 17.
“Systems were not yet robust enough or fully embedded to demonstrate effective oversight and management of the service, or to ensure records of care were complete and up to date.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingPeople, relatives and staff gave mixed feedback about staffing. Staff said personal care could be rushed and that they did not always have time to support people with showers.
“Staff told us they did not always have enough time to support people with their personal care, and completing care tasks was often rushed.” from the report
Limited interaction for some people
needs fixingSome people stayed in bed or in their rooms, and it was not always clear whether this reflected choice or assessed need. They could have fewer opportunities for regular interaction.
“When people were supported to be in the communal areas, there was not always enough for them to do, or opportunities for consistent interaction with staff.” from the report
Infrequent showers
needs fixingSome people and relatives said there were not always regular opportunities for baths or showers. The provider agreed to review this, including the possible link with staffing levels.
“Most people told us they had no concerns about support for personal care, although some people and relatives said showers were still not frequent.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that daily care records are complete, detailed and written at the right time?
- 02How many staff are available on each floor at different times of day, and how do you prevent personal care and showers being rushed or delayed?
- 03How do you record whether someone staying in bed or in their room has chosen this, or needs a different type of support and activity?
- 04Who is currently responsible for the home while there is no registered manager, and when will the manager registration issue be resolved?
- 05What action has been taken to improve oral health checks, daily mouth and teeth care, and access to a dentist?
This was a full follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, after the previous inspection found breaches in Regulations 9, 12 and 17. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 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, December 2022
Rated Requires Improvement overall, with Inadequate leadership and serious shortfalls in safe, person-centred care.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors visited on 2 and 9 November 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found risks were not always managed safely. These included choking, skin damage, medicines, weight loss and incomplete care records. People were not always supported properly with meals, personal care, oral care or activities.
The home had safe recruitment and infection control measures. Staff understood safeguarding and mental capacity requirements. However, inspectors found widespread failures in management oversight, and the home did not have a registered manager in post.
The overall rating stayed at Requires Improvement, the same as at the previous inspection. Safe, caring, effective and responsive were all rated Requires Improvement. Well-led fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, including the use of protective equipment and visiting arrangements, were effective.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The home recruited staff safely and had recruitment activity under way.
“Staff were recruited safely, and the home manager told us about their ongoing recruitment activity.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to recognise signs of abuse. People told inspectors they felt safe living at the home.
“Staff had received appropriate training in this area, knew how to identify signs of abuse.” from the report
Legal decision-making
Inspectors found that mental capacity and best-interest decisions were completed when needed, and applications for safeguards had been made.
“MCA and best interest decisions were being completed for relevant decisions about people care.” from the report
Working with professionals
The home worked with health and social care professionals, including tissue viability nurses and the mental health team, to support people's needs.
“The service worked in collaboration with a number of organisations to support care provision.” from the report
Risks and medicines
seriousSome people at risk of choking were eating alone while lying down. Medicines records did not always show that creams, thickener or other medicines had been given safely.
“Systems had not been established to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service” from the report
Nutrition and personal care
seriousInspectors found concerns about weight loss, delayed action, oral care, foot care and people not being offered baths or showers.
“People were not always supported with their nutritional needs in a person centred way.” from the report
Staffing
needs fixingPeople, relatives and staff raised concerns about staffing levels, staff continuity and the use of agency staff. The provider was asked to review staffing and deployment.
“People and relatives shared concerns about staffing levels and staff continuity.” from the report
Lack of activities
needs fixingInspectors saw people watching passively or sleeping, with little meaningful interaction. The home could not provide activity records when asked.
“We found care was not always designed or delivered in a way that met people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousQuality audits did not identify or resolve the problems inspectors found. Care records were not always accurate, complete or up to date.
“The quality assurance processes in place had not been effective in either identifying the issues found at this inspection or in driving the necessary improvements.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to keep people at risk of choking upright and supervised during meals?
- 02How do you now check that medicines, creams and thickening supplements are given and recorded correctly?
- 03How are weight loss, pressure ulcers, oral care, foot care and bathing monitored, and what happens when care is missed?
- 04What staffing levels are provided on each shift, and how do agency staff learn about each person's needs?
- 05What regular meaningful activities are now available, and how do you record people's participation and preferences?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection focused on concerns about staffing, medicines and safeguarding, but inspectors also assessed all five key questions and rated the whole service. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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.
Every inspection of Corinthian House
8 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- September 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 July 2014.
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.