CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Errol House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood people's risks and staffing was organised around individual needs. Some safety and medicines documentation lacked detail.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's choices, health needs and dietary needs were supported well. Staff had relevant training and worked with health professionals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to communicate their wishes and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and support were based on people's interests, communication needs and preferences. Activities and family contact were encouraged.
- Well-led?
- Good
- A new management team was settling in and staff felt supported. Quality monitoring was in place, although records of provider visits were not always systematic.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but some records needed clearer detail.
This was an unannounced inspection on 06 March 2020. One inspector spoke with people, staff, managers, relatives and professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, policies, recruitment, incident, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported to make choices, stay as independent as possible and take part in activities they enjoyed.
Inspectors found some minor gaps in documentation. Care records, medicines records, safety checks and records of provider visits were not always detailed or systematic. The management team had identified these areas for improvement.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, gain skills and become more independent. Staff adapted communication to each person's needs.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their privacy and treated them with patience and dignity.
“People were supported by kind, patient and caring staff who understood their individual needs.” from the report
Individual activities
Activities reflected people's personal interests and choices, and contact with families was actively encouraged.
“People engaged in activities which were of personal interest, choice and value.” from the report
Good support for health and food
Staff understood people's dietary needs and involved them in planning meals. Health professionals were contacted when necessary.
“People were fully involved in the planning and preparation of their meals.” from the report
Provider visit records were not systematic
minorThe home had quality checks and an improvement plan, but records of provider visits were not always recorded in a systematic way.
“Records of provider visits were not always systematically recorded, although there was a shared continuous improvement plan in place and actions identified.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the care records since inspectors said they sometimes lacked detail?
- 02How are medicines records now checked, including the recording of homely remedies?
- 03How are safety checks for the premises and equipment recorded and reviewed?
- 04How have the recent management changes affected communication with families?
- 05How are provider visits and actions from quality audits now recorded?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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, August 2017
Errol House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the kitchen needed improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 20 June 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, and had enough staff to meet their needs.
People were treated with respect and supported to make choices. Staff understood people's communication methods and individual needs. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities and community access.
The home remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in January 2015. Inspectors noted that the kitchen was tired, with damaged worktops and units that could not be cleaned effectively. The registered manager agreed to arrange improvements.
Kind, respectful support
Staff understood people's preferences and communication methods. Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that privacy and dignity were maintained.
“We saw staff took account of people's individual needs and preferences while supporting them.” from the report
Safe care
Safeguarding systems, risk assessments, emergency plans and medicines checks were in place. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs during the inspection.
“People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse because staff employed were trained in safeguarding adults and understood their responsibilities.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to choose activities, go into the community and take holidays. Staff responded to changes in people's needs and involved outside professionals when needed.
“People received one to one support for activities in the community and had an organised holiday each year.” from the report
Open management
Staff described good teamwork and felt able to raise concerns. The home used audits, surveys, meetings and action plans to check its quality.
“Staff felt they worked well as a team and everyone pulled together to share ideas and resolve problems.” from the report
Kitchen condition
needs fixingThe kitchen was tired and had damaged worktops and units that could not be cleaned effectively. The registered manager agreed to discuss and arrange the necessary work.
“However, we found the kitchens were very tired with damaged worktops and units which were not able to be effectively cleaned.” from the report
- 01Have the damaged kitchen worktops and units been replaced or repaired?
- 02How do you make sure the kitchen can now be cleaned effectively?
- 03Have you recruited the additional care staff mentioned in the report?
- 04How are people's communication methods recorded and shared with new staff?
- 05How are people and relatives involved when care plans are reviewed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with all five ratings remaining Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 August 2017 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 Errol House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 August 2011.
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.