CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Firth House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak planning. They recommended a visible notice for the staff restroom and recording staff temperature checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess the effectiveness of care and support.
- Caring?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess how caring staff were towards residents.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess how the home responded to residents’ needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess the leadership or management of the home.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, with two minor recording and notice recommendations.
Inspectors visited the home on 3 March 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It focused on infection prevention and control, rather than giving a full service rating.
Inspectors found that staff and visitors were using personal protective equipment correctly. Hand sanitising and protective equipment were available. Staff had training, and infection control procedures were clear and followed.
The home had regular COVID-19 testing for staff and residents. Inspectors also found plans for dealing with an infection outbreak and noted good uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine among residents.
The home was marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the report does not provide a full rating for the home or its five key areas.
PPE arrangements
Staff and visitors had access to suitable protective equipment, and staff were observed using it correctly.
“Effective systems were in place to ensure staff and visitors to the service followed government guidelines for wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).” from the report
Infection control
Infection prevention procedures were clear, followed by staff and supported by training and plentiful supplies.
“Infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures were clear and followed by staff.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Regular COVID-19 testing was in place, and the home had plans for responding to an infection outbreak.
“The service had plans in place and knew how to respond to an outbreak of infection to ensure the safety of people and staff.” from the report
Staff restroom notice and temperature records
minorInspectors recommended a visible notice showing how many people could use the staff restroom at once. They also recommended recording staff temperature checks.
“We have recommended that the provider place a visible notice on the staff restroom door to notify how many people can occupy the area at the same time and also to record staff temperature checks.” from the report
- 01Has the recommended notice about the maximum number of people in the staff restroom been put up?
- 02How are staff temperature checks recorded now?
- 03What is the home’s current process for testing staff and residents for infections?
- 04How would the home manage an infection outbreak affecting residents?
- 05Can you show me the current infection prevention and control policy and explain how staff are trained in it?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide a full rating of the home or assess the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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, November 2019
Firth House was rated Good overall, but inspectors found that some safety checks and records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 18 September and 2 October 2019. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and checked care, medicines, staff files and other records.
People said they felt safe and received their medicines as prescribed. The home was clean, staff were kind and respectful, and people had personalised care plans, activities and access to healthcare. However, some risk assessments were missing on the first day, records for creams were not always completed, and people gave mixed views about staffing levels.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe remained Requires Improvement. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while the Safe rating stayed the same.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring, patient and kind. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's dignity and responding to their emotional needs.
“People felt staff were caring and approached them in a patient and kind manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included information about people's lives, families, past occupations and interests. Staff knew the needs and preferences of the people they supported.
“Care plans contained descriptive information about who they were as a person, such as the things they enjoyed, their family and past occupations.” from the report
Activities and social life
People could take part in varied activities, including baking, karaoke and coffee mornings. The home also worked with local organisations to provide further stimulation.
“People had the opportunity to participate in a wide variety of activities.” from the report
Management checks
The provider and management team carried out regular checks on quality and safety. Actions identified through audits were completed.
“Regular checks and audits had been completed to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
Missing risk assessments
seriousOn the first day, some risk assessments were not in place for needs including choking and diabetes. They were introduced before the second day, but the report says missing assessments increased the risk that people could be harmed.
“On the first day of our inspection, some risk assessments were not in place.” from the report
Staffing and deployment
needs fixingPeople gave mixed views about whether there were enough staff. Staffing had increased since the previous inspection, but more time was needed to make sure staff were deployed effectively.
“Further time was required to embed these changes to ensure effective deployment of staff.” from the report
Cream records
minorRecords showing when creams were administered were not consistently completed. Inspectors found that people had not been adversely affected because staff monitored them.
“Records for the administration of creams were not consistently completed.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act understanding
needs fixingThere was some misunderstanding about when mental capacity assessments should be completed. The provider agreed to address this.
“There was some misunderstanding about the principles of the MCA, for example assessments being completed for people who had capacity.” from the report
Staff support and communication
needs fixingSome staff felt unsupported and said communication was not always effective. Inspectors recommended continued engagement, training and support for senior care staff.
“Some staff felt they weren't supported in their role and that communication wasn't always effective.” from the report
- 01What risk assessments are now in place for choking, diabetes and distressed or anxious behaviour?
- 02How are staffing levels and staff deployment reviewed to make sure people's needs are met throughout the day?
- 03What checks make sure records for creams and other medicines are completed every time?
- 04How are senior care staff being trained and supported, and what has been done to improve communication?
- 05How do you make sure people are involved in care plan reviews and that mental capacity assessments are only completed when needed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, with the first day unannounced and the second day announced; both the care and the premises were checked. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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 Firth House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 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 was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.