What the CQC found at Cottingley Hall Care Home

Inspectors found enough staff and suitable recruitment checks. Staffing levels were observed to be suitable during the inspection.

“People and staff told us there was always enough staff available to provide support, and the provider's dependency assessment confirmed this.” from the report

The building was clean and well maintained. Bedrooms were personalised and equipment was adapted to people's needs.

“The environment was well maintained, clean, inviting, and homely.” from the report

People and relatives gave very positive feedback about the care. Staff also spoke positively about the new manager's approach.

“Feedback from people and relatives was overwhelmingly positive about the care people received.” from the report

Inspectors were assured that infection risks, protective equipment, admissions and the premises were being managed appropriately.

“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report

Staff did not always record when topical creams were applied. Some creams and patches lacked clear instructions, and flammable paraffin creams were stored without fire-risk assessments.

“Staff were not detailing on medication administration records (MARs) when 'as and when required' (PRN) topical creams were being applied.” from the report

Repositioning records were incomplete, airflow mattress settings were not always recorded, and some choking risks were not clearly reflected in care plans. The manager said these records were updated after the inspection.

“The provider did not always assess risks to ensure people were safe, and staff did not always take action to mitigate risks identified.” from the report

Audits and oversight did not reliably identify problems with falls, repositioning, food and fluids or care records. This led to a breach of the good governance regulation.

“Systems to assess, monitor and improve the service were not sufficiently robust.” from the report

Some restrictions, such as bed sensors, were used without the required best-interest decisions or consent records. The provider began completing the missing documents after inspectors raised this.

“Some people were subject to restrictions for their own safety, such as the use of bed sensors, but they did not always have best interest decisions or consent in place.” from the report

Accidents and incidents were usually recorded, but the provider did not always analyse them well enough to identify patterns or prevent repeat risks.

“The provider did not always learn lessons when things had gone wrong.” from the report