CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cragside
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. This included visitor screening, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing and plans for managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Cragside was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 March 2021. It checked how well the home was preventing and controlling infections, including COVID-19 risks. Four people were living there at the time.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were screened, wore suitable protective equipment and followed social distancing rules. Staff were trained in infection control, supplies of protective equipment were available, and regular COVID-19 testing was in place for staff and residents.
The home was clean and extra cleaning covered frequently touched surfaces. People were supported to keep in touch with relatives by phone, window visits and video calls. The inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated score for safe care.
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened, provided with hand sanitiser and protective equipment, and supervised to help them follow infection control guidance.
“Screening questions and a temperature check were standard requirements for all visitors.” from the report
Staff training and PPE
Staff had been trained in safe infection control practices and inspectors saw them using appropriate protective equipment. Supplies were sufficient.
“All staff were trained in safe infection, prevention and control (IPC) practices.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
Regular COVID-19 testing was available for staff and residents. The report also noted good uptake of the vaccine among residents.
“A regular programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for staff and people who lived in the service.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The environment was clean and hygienic.” from the report
Keeping families connected
Residents were supported to maintain contact with relatives through phone calls, window visits and video calls.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives in different ways including phone calls, window visits and video calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and supported to follow infection control guidance?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested for COVID-19 now?
- 03What supplies of protective equipment are currently available, and how is staff training kept up to date?
- 04What is the current plan if there is an infection outbreak in the home?
- 05How can residents keep in touch with relatives if visits are restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not provide an overall rating or assess the other care areas in detail. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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, May 2019
Cragside was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but records and end of life planning needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 10 April 2019 and returned on 18 April 2019. They spoke with one person, managers, staff and a relative. They reviewed care records, staff files, audits and other records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and people were supported to make choices and take part in their interests. Inspectors saw kind and respectful care.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Daily records did not always contain enough detail. Some care documents were not dated, and one nutritional risk assessment had not been reviewed since October 2018. The report also recommended improving end of life care planning.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the service was performing well overall. It does not mean everything was perfect. The home had improved from its previous overall rating of Requires Improvement, published in April 2018.
People were safe
Staff understood safeguarding and their responsibilities. Risks were assessed, the home was clean, and medicines were managed safely.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and patience. People were supported to express their views and make choices.
“During our observations, staff spoke to people in a kind and caring manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individuality, preferences and goals. Staff supported people with hobbies, interests, meals and daily choices.
“Care records were detailed, person centred and comprehensive.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had improved its ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led since the previous inspection. Inspectors said earlier shortfalls had been addressed.
“We found shortfalls identified at our previous inspection had been addressed.” from the report
Daily records lacked detail
needs fixingDaily notes did not always give a clear and accurate record of people's lives and achievements. This could make it harder to see what support had been provided.
“The daily records for people were not always sufficiently detailed to ensure they provided and accurate and contemporaneous record of people's daily lives and achievements.” from the report
Some care documents were out of date
needs fixingSome documents were not dated, so inspectors could not tell when they had been reviewed. One nutritional risk assessment had not been reviewed since October 2018.
“A nutritional screening tool for one person instructed staff to review the assessment every three months.” from the report
End of life planning
minorCare records did not cover people's end of life wishes. Inspectors recommended that the home seek advice and guidance on planning for this.
“Care records did not include any reference to considering this aspect of people's care.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the detail and accuracy of daily records since the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure every care document is dated and reviewed on time?
- 03Has the nutritional risk assessment process been updated, and how are overdue reviews identified?
- 04How do you now discuss and record people's end of life wishes?
- 05How do people living at the home take part in recruiting new staff?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with a return visit on 18 April 2019 and further information requested afterwards. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 May 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 Cragside
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 December 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.