CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elderthorpe Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, visiting, cleanliness and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Elderthorpe Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safely managed visiting during the pandemic.
The inspection took place on 24 February 2022 and was announced 24 hours beforehand. It was a targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control, including COVID-19 measures and any staffing pressures.
Inspectors found the home was clean and well ventilated. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly, people and staff had regular COVID-19 testing, and visits were managed safely.
The home was marked “Inspected but not rated”. This visit did not provide a new overall quality rating. The report does not list any breaches or enforcement action.
Infection control
The home had cleaning arrangements, ventilation and PPE practices that inspectors considered appropriate.
“The home was clean, well ventilated, with robust cleaning schedules in place.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home supported both remote and on-site visits, with testing and vaccination checks for relevant visitors.
“The registered manager has facilitated visits for people during the pandemic, inclusive of remote video calls and safely managed onsite visits.” from the report
PPE and training
Staff had extra training during the pandemic and were seen using PPE correctly.
“Staff were observed to be wearing PPE correctly and had access to this throughout the service.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People and staff completed regular COVID-19 testing and had received COVID-19 vaccinations.
“Staff and people living at the home completed regular COVID-19 testing, and had received their COVID-19 vaccinations.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current staffing levels, and have staffing pressures affected people's care?
- 02What infection prevention and control measures are in place now?
- 03How are visits managed now, including visits from relatives and professionals?
- 04How does the home make sure staff have up-to-date PPE and infection control training?
- 05When was the home's wider quality of care last rated by the CQC?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it did not rate the other four key questions or provide an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 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.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, organised care, but safety checks were not always complete.
This was an unannounced inspection on 09 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care and staff records, looked around the building and observed care during lunchtime.
The overall rating was Good. Inspectors found caring staff, enough workers, safe medicines systems, suitable training, good activities and support for people's health, communication and end of life wishes. People and relatives were positive about the care.
The Safe rating was Requires Improvement. Some safety checks were missing or needed strengthening, including checks on window restrictors, the call bell system and emergency lighting. Inspectors also found that fluid charts needed daily totals and one care plan contained contradictory information. The other four areas were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. Staff respected privacy, explained care and supported people to remain independent.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Enough experienced staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Many staff had worked at the home for several years, helping them know people well.
“The service was well staffed, and most staff had worked at the service for several years.” from the report
Medicines handled safely
Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of using safe procedures. People received their medicines when they should.
“Medicines systems were organised and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
The home offered a range of activities suited to people's needs and interests. Inspectors saw that people responded positively to them.
“A good range of well-planned and thought-out activities were arranged to suit people's various needs and interests.” from the report
Incomplete safety checks
seriousThere were no regular checks on window restrictors. The call bell system and emergency lighting also needed servicing by a certified professional, although this was booked during the inspection.
“However, we saw there were no regular safety checks on window restrictors being completed.” from the report
Fluid records needed better checking
needs fixingFluid charts for people at nutritional risk were generally well completed, but daily totals were needed to confirm that people reached their target amounts.
“However, fluid charts needed to be totalled at the end of each day to ensure people were receiving the indicated target fluid amounts.” from the report
One care plan was inconsistent
needs fixingOne person's manual handling risk assessment and mobility care plan gave contradictory information. The manager corrected this during the inspection.
“However, one person's care plan we reviewed contained contradictory information about their manual handling risk assessment and mobility care plan.” from the report
- 01What regular checks are now carried out on window restrictors, and when was the last check?
- 02Have the call bell system and emergency lighting been serviced by a certified professional, and can you show us the records?
- 03How do you now make sure fluid charts are totalled each day for people who have fluid targets?
- 04What checks are used to make sure manual handling and mobility information in care plans does not conflict?
- 05How were the emergency evacuation plans updated after the inspection, and are they reviewed when people's needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including all five CQC questions, the building and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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 Elderthorpe Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Elderthorpe Residential Home →
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Elderthorpe Residential Home →
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.