CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cross Heath Grove
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding procedures. Medicines, risk assessments, recruitment checks and infection control were found to be managed safely, although missing codes on some medicines records were identified and addressed immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- The home assessed people's needs before stays and reviewed them before each visit. Staff were trained and supported, people were involved in food choices and the necessary Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications had been completed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and cheerful. Staff knew people's preferences, protected their dignity and supported them to become more independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported to choose activities, maintain relationships and communicate in ways they could understand.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff showed a person-centred approach and used audits to monitor care and safety. The home had an open culture, although its surveys covered the provider's services rather than this respite service alone.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Cross Heath Grove was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was a planned inspection carried out over three visits on 22 and 26 November and 5 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, the manager and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was providing short breaks for people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people felt safe, medicines were managed safely and risks were assessed. Staff had suitable training and people received support with food, health needs and communication.
People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and cheerful. Care was personalised, people were offered choices and staff supported independence and community activities. The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
The previous inspection, published in December 2018, rated the home Requires Improvement overall. This inspection found that Safe, Effective and Well-led had improved to Good. The home had addressed earlier issues with medicines, staff competency checks and legal authorisations.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as caring, cheerful and attentive. Inspectors found that staff protected privacy and dignity.
“People and their relatives said staff were caring, kind and made them laugh.” from the report
Personalised support
The home assessed people's needs before stays and reviewed changes before each visit. Care plans recorded preferences, communication needs and cultural or religious needs.
“Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about rooms, food and activities. Staff supported people to develop practical skills and become more independent.
“People were encouraged to have full control of their lives.” from the report
Improved safety systems
Medicines were managed safely, staff competency checks had been introduced and risk assessments were regularly reviewed.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Good partnership with families
Relatives were involved in care planning and received feedback after stays. Staff also worked with health professionals when needed.
“People's relatives were involved in the care planning process and staff said they maintained a good working relationship with family members.” from the report
Medicines recording
needs fixingSome medicines administration records did not show why a medicine had not been given. The manager took immediate action, but families should check how this was followed up.
“However, we found there were no codes on the MARs to identify reasons as to why a medicine may not have been administered.” from the report
Night staffing
minorThe home sometimes struggled to cover night shifts and used agency staff when needed. People said there were enough staff, but families should ask how familiar replacement staff are with their relative.
“We sometimes struggle with night staff as we only have two permanent staff and sometimes need to use agency staff.” from the report
Feedback surveys
minorThe surveys used to gather views were not specific to this respite home. This may make it harder to identify views about this service alone.
“However, these were not specific to the respite service and reflected the views from people in all the providers services.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that the missing codes on medicines records were corrected and that records remain complete?
- 02How often are agency staff used at night, and how are they briefed about a person's needs and preferences?
- 03How will you gather feedback specifically from people and relatives using this respite home?
- 04How will you assess my relative's needs and preferences before each short break?
- 05What activities and support would be available to help my relative build independence?
This was a planned inspection of the care home that looked at all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 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, December 2018
Cross Heath Grove was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but medicines, consent and management checks needed improvement.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 22 October 2018. One inspector visited while five people were staying. The inspection included conversations with people, relatives, staff and the manager, as well as checks of support plans, medicines records, staff files, risks and audits.
The home was caring and responsive. People were treated kindly, supported to be independent and offered activities that matched their interests. Staff knew people well, involved families in support planning and helped people keep in touch with family and friends.
The home was not always safe, effective or well-led. Inspectors found unclear medicines records, no completed checks that staff were competent to give medicines, and missing decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions. Quality checks had not found these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. This was the first time the home received a Requires Improvement rating.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness. Inspectors saw friendly interactions and respect for privacy, dignity and independence.
“Our observations showed people were well supported.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans described how each person wanted to be supported. Staff checked for changes in needs before each stay.
“Support plans were person-centred and reflected the needs people required and contained information that was specific to the person.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities at home and in the community. They could maintain relationships with family and friends without restrictions.
“People were able to maintain relationships with family and friends without restrictions.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff and appropriate recruitment checks. Staff received training, induction and supervision.
“We found people were supported by, sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff.” from the report
Medicines records and checks
seriousSome medicines information was incomplete or unclear. Staff who gave medicines had not had their competency assessed, creating a risk that the correct dose or instructions might not be followed.
“We could not be sure staff had been assessed as competent to administer medicines.” from the report
Mental capacity records
seriousThe home supported people with medicines and finances without recording decision-specific mental capacity assessments or best-interest decisions where needed.
“Support plans did not contain decision specific mental capacity assessments or best interest decisions.” from the report
Weak management audits
seriousAudits did not identify several problems found by inspectors. This included medicines records, emergency plans, hospital passports, financial records and mental capacity documentation.
“The above demonstrated breach of Regulation 17(1)(2)(a) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, 'Good governance', because the registered provider did not have effective systems in place to assess and monitor risks relating to health, safety and welfare.” from the report
Out-of-date emergency information
needs fixingSome personal emergency evacuation plans and hospital passports had not been reviewed for some time. The provider said these would be reviewed and an action plan was sent after the inspection.
“Although, these had not been updated for some time.” from the report
- 01Have all staff who administer medicines now completed and passed competency assessments?
- 02How do you check that medicine doses, labels, administration records and as-required medicine instructions are accurate?
- 03Have decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions been completed for medicines, finances and information sharing?
- 04Have personal emergency evacuation plans and hospital passports been reviewed before each stay?
- 05How do your current audits identify and correct problems that were missed at the inspection?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 2018 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 Cross Heath Grove
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 August 2015.
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.