CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 66 Leeds Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, staffing levels were safe, medicines were managed properly and incidents were investigated.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had suitable training and support. Food, healthcare, the building and legal decision-making arrangements generally met people's needs, although some health records were not completed consistently.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind and compassionate. People were treated with dignity and respect, involved in decisions and supported to develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed regularly. People had activities, community opportunities and communication support, although records about relationships and some independence goals needed to be clearer.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and inclusive culture, and audits had improved since the previous inspection. However, provider visits that were meant to happen monthly had not taken place for several months.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Foresight Residential Limited - 66 Leeds Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and provider checks needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 February 2020. One inspector spoke with six people, eight staff members and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and for all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, kind staff and care that was generally personalised.
People were supported to make choices, develop independence, access the community and take part in activities. The home was clean and adapted to people's needs. Staff worked with health professionals and supported people's communication needs.
Inspectors identified some improvements still needed. Records about people's goals, relationships, health action plans and healthy lifestyles were not always complete or clear. Provider visits had also not taken place as regularly as planned.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and secure. Staff understood safeguarding and risks, and incidents were investigated with learning recorded.
“People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored securely, given by trained staff and recorded properly. People were also supported to self-administer where this was assessed as safe.
“Medicines were managed in a safe and proper way.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw people were relaxed and comfortable with staff. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, communication and choices.
“People were treated fairly and kindly from compassionate staff.” from the report
Choice and community life
People had a wide range of activities and were supported to attend day services, local events and community activities.
“People had access to a wide range of activities and social opportunities.” from the report
Improved leadership
The culture was open and inclusive, and the effectiveness of audits had improved since the previous inspection.
“There was a positive, open and inclusive culture within the home which helped people achieve positive outcomes.” from the report
Health records were not always complete
needs fixingHealth action plans were not completed consistently. Some care plans also needed more information about healthy lifestyles.
“However, the completion of health action plans was not consistent.” from the report
Relationship needs needed more detail
needs fixingStaff gave examples of supporting relationships, but this was not recorded fully in assessments and care plans. The report recommended reviewing how sexuality and relationship needs were assessed and recorded.
“We recommend the service reviews its approach to assessing and recording people's sexuality and relationship needs to ensure it is in line with recognised guidance.” from the report
Provider visits were inconsistent
needs fixingThe provider was expected to carry out monthly visits, but these had not happened for several months. Inspectors recommended that provider visits and management support be provided consistently.
“However, although provider audits were due to be undertaken monthly, these had not happened for several months.” from the report
- 01How are each person's independence goals recorded, reviewed and updated?
- 02How do you record and support each person's friendships, sexuality and relationship needs?
- 03How do you make sure health action plans and healthy lifestyle plans are completed and kept up to date?
- 04How often are provider visits and management support now carried out?
- 05How are people involved in choosing activities, menus and decisions about how the home is run?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good, while Well-led had previously been Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 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, July 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, but the home's quality checks and management oversight required improvement.
Inspectors visited without warning on 7 June 2017. They spoke with five people living in the home, two relatives, the manager, three staff members and a visiting healthcare professional. They also checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training, maintenance and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People were supported by staff who knew them well, respected their choices and helped them stay active and in contact with family and friends. Medicines, risks, staffing and the environment were managed safely.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. The provider's quality checks were basic and did not include enough direct oversight. Care plans and records about consent and best-interest decisions also needed development. The overall rating remained Good, as the weaknesses had not been judged to affect the overall quality rating.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe and listened to. The home had arrangements for managing risks, fire safety, medicines and the building.
“People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt happy and safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. Staff respected privacy and dignity while encouraging people to make their own choices.
“We observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service over the course of the inspection.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to follow their interests, visit familiar and new places, attend day centres and take up work opportunities.
“People led an active life, this included visiting places they knew and enjoyed, but also visiting places which were new and exciting.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
People had access to healthcare professionals and detailed health plans and hospital passports were available to explain their needs.
“People had access to a wide range of healthcare professionals where needed.” from the report
Limited provider oversight
needs fixingThe provider did not regularly visit to carry out quality checks or supervise the manager. The checks in place had not identified some of the issues found by inspectors.
“Quality assurance checks in place were basic and did not include oversight from the provider.” from the report
Care records needed updating
needs fixingCare plans reflected people's preferences but were sometimes repetitive, difficult to navigate and included old information. Inspectors also said records about consent and best-interest decisions needed development.
“Old historical documents which were no longer relevant were also held with the care plans.” from the report
Agency staff information
needs fixingWhen agency staff were used, the information provided did not include details of a satisfactory DBS check or recent training dates. The manager said this would be sought next time.
“This did not include any detail of a satisfactory DBS check or dates of recent training.” from the report
Outdated staffing tool
minorThe staffing assessment tool used to decide staffing levels was outdated. Inspectors found no impact on people at the time, and the manager said a newer resource would be used.
“The tool used was outdated and we discussed this with the manager.” from the report
- 01What provider-led quality checks have been introduced since this inspection, and how are the results followed up?
- 02How do you make sure care plans are current, easy to use and do not contain old information?
- 03How are consent and best-interest decisions recorded and reviewed?
- 04What checks do you complete before agency staff work here, including DBS and training checks?
- 05Has the staffing assessment tool been replaced with a current system, and how are staffing levels matched to people's needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 July 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 66 Leeds Road
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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
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.