CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Daisy Vale House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements, including PPE, testing, cleaning and safe admissions. They found damp in some areas and noted that the corridors were not two metres wide.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly suitable infection controls, but damp and narrow corridors needed attention.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3 March 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured about testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, hand hygiene, admissions, outbreak planning and the infection control policy. The home was clean, but there was damp in some areas and the building's corridors were not wide enough for two-metre distancing.
The home was restricting visitors except for emergencies or essential visits. Staff helped people keep in touch with family and friends by phone and video calls. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating.
Cleaning and hygiene
The home was clean and had no bad smells. Touch points were cleaned every two hours, and staff recorded handwashing.
“The home was clean and there were no malodours.” from the report
Testing and protective equipment
The home had arrangements for COVID-19 testing. Staff used protective equipment in line with government guidance.
“All staff wore their PPE in line with government guidance.” from the report
Keeping people connected
Staff supported people to maintain contact with family and friends through phone and video calls while visits were restricted.
“Staff supported people to keep in touch with family and friends through video and phone calls” from the report
Infection planning
The home had an up-to-date infection control policy and a plan for emergencies. Inspectors were assured about preventing and managing outbreaks.
“The home's infection prevention and control policy was up to date and in line with current guidance.” from the report
Damp in the building
needs fixingInspectors found damp in some areas. The home had started taking action, but CQC was seeking further assurance that the problem had been dealt with.
“We found areas in the home had damp which needed to be remedied.” from the report
Narrow corridors
needs fixingThe corridors were not two metres wide because of the building's layout. Staff said they tried to avoid passing each other in the corridors.
“The limitations of the property meant that corridors within the building were not two metres wide.” from the report
- 01Has all the damp identified during the inspection been repaired, and what evidence can you show that the work is complete?
- 02How do staff manage distancing when people and staff need to use the narrow corridors?
- 03What are the current visiting arrangements, and when would visits be restricted or allowed?
- 04How often are people and staff tested, and how is the home managing a positive test or outbreak?
- 05How will you help my relative keep in regular contact with family if visits are restricted?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with the home larger than current best practice guidance.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over 14 and 15 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment and supervision records, and management information.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, detailed personalised care plans and kind relationships between people and staff.
People were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in education, employment, relationships and community activities. The home had systems to monitor quality and respond to concerns.
The rating stayed Good from the previous inspection, published on 16 May 2017. The home supports 16 people with a learning disability and is larger than current best practice guidance, although inspectors said the design and setting reduced the possible negative impact.
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff clear information about people's needs, preferences and communication. Some people helped write their own care plans.
“Care plans contained detailed person centred information with clear guidance for staff on how to meet people's needs.” from the report
Independence and community life
People were supported to work towards personal goals, including education, employment, hobbies, relationships and community activities.
“People were actively encouraged by staff to follow their personal aims and dreams with as much support as they needed.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw kind and patient interactions. People appeared comfortable with staff and relatives said staff were friendly, caring and supportive.
“Interactions we observed were kind and patient, and there was a good atmosphere in the home.” from the report
Safety and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and appropriate systems for managing risks, safeguarding concerns and medicines.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and staff were recruited safely.” from the report
Quality oversight
The home had regular governance meetings and processes to monitor incidents, complaints, training and other quality measures.
“There were clear processes in place for monitoring the quality of the service and ensuring any improvements identified were made.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home supports 16 people and is larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design and location reduced the impact of its size.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure the size of the home does not affect my relative's privacy, choice or personal support?
- 02How are medicines administration records audited, and what improvements have those audits identified?
- 03How would you support my relative's individual goals, such as education, employment, relationships or community activities?
- 04How would staff communicate with my relative if they use particular gestures, words or communication styles?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in future care planning and decisions about end of life care?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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 Daisy Vale House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 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 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.