CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at House of Light
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found damp throughout the building, poor cleanliness, incomplete cleaning records and no up-to-date fire risk assessment. They also found that not all staff had completed relevant moving and handling or safeguarding training.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected at this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected at this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. People had individual activities, flexible routines and support to maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had approachable management and positive feedback from people, relatives and professionals. However, audits were not robust and the training system did not show clearly whether staff training was up to date.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but safety, cleanliness, fire checks and staff training needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 18 January 2022. They spoke with a person using the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, training information and management records.
People described staff as kind and said they felt safe and listened to. Care plans were personalised, activities reflected people's interests, medicines were managed safely and complaints were investigated. The home supported people to communicate, stay active and maintain relationships.
Inspectors found damp throughout the building, an unclean environment and no up-to-date fire risk assessment. Fire doors were propped open during the visit. Cleaning records were not completed, safeguarding records were incomplete and the home could not show that all staff training was up to date.
The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Responsive was rated Good. Effective and Caring were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings were used.
Kind and person-centred support
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care. Staff listened to people and supported them in ways that reflected their individual needs.
“People and relatives shared positive feedback about the care provided and the leadership of the service” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff could explain how they supported people using this information.
“Care plans were personalised to reflect peoples care needs and health conditions.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to take part in individual and group activities, including outings and interests that mattered to them.
“The service ensured people could take part in person centred activities for example, sky diving and dancing.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found systems for administering medicines safely. Regular medicine audits were completed and issues were acted on.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. Systems were in place to ensure medicines were managed and people's medicines were administered safely.” from the report
Building and fire safety
seriousDamp was found throughout the building. The fire risk assessment was not up to date, and fire doors were propped open during the inspection.
“We were not assured the premises were maintained. During the inspection we found damp throughout the building.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousThe premises were unclean and there were not enough cleaners to keep them clean. Cleaning records were not completed, making it harder to check infection control.
“The premise was unclean and although we saw evidence of cleaning there was not enough cleaners to ensure all the premise was clean.” from the report
Staff training records
needs fixingThe home could not show that all staff training was up to date. It was also unclear which training was mandatory.
“We could not be assured staff training was up to date. It was unclear what training was considered mandatory.” from the report
Weak management checks
needs fixingAudits did not identify patterns or risks well enough. Inspectors said management systems should have found the environmental and fire safety problems sooner.
“However, the audits were not robust. For example, the audits did not include an overview to identify any patterns or trends which could be addressed” from the report
Safeguarding records
needs fixingSafeguarding concerns had been raised, but there was no log showing their progress or outcomes. Not all staff were up to date with safeguarding training.
“We found safeguarding concerns were raised, however, there was no safeguarding log to give an overview of safeguarding concerns and the progress or outcome” from the report
- 01What work has been completed to remove the damp and maintain the building?
- 02Has an up-to-date fire risk assessment been completed, and how are fire doors now checked?
- 03How do you make sure the premises are cleaned properly and that cleaning records are completed?
- 04How do you now track mandatory staff training, including moving and handling and safeguarding training?
- 05What improvements have been made to safeguarding logs and quality audits since the inspection?
This was a focused inspection prompted partly by infection prevention concerns; Safe, Responsive and Well-led were reported, while other key-question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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, September 2018
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsive care and strong support for independence, choice and community life.
Inspectors visited on 11 and 16 July 2018. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and other records.
The home supported up to six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with respect and supported by staff who knew them very well. People were helped to make choices, stay independent, access health care and take part in work, education, activities and holidays.
The home was rated Good overall in Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Responsive was rated Outstanding, an improvement from Good at the previous inspection in October 2015. Inspectors found especially personalised care and excellent support for people's communication, goals and quality of life.
Personalised care
Staff understood people's preferences and supported them to achieve personal goals, including work, holidays and activities they valued.
“Staff had an exceptional understanding of people's preferences related to every aspect of their life and care was delivered in an outstandingly person-centred way.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and daily lives. Staff encouraged positive risk taking rather than restricting people unnecessarily.
“People were involved in every aspect of their care and daily living within the home which included training, jobs in the home, meetings and reviews.” from the report
Communication support
The home adapted communication to people's needs, including using pictures, videos and Makaton sign language.
“The service was exceptional in meeting people's communication needs and followed the Accessible Information Standards.” from the report
Community involvement
People took part in work, education, day services, activities and holidays. This helped them stay connected and avoid social isolation.
“People accessed a wide variety of community services which they chose and which prevented any social isolation.” from the report
Strong management
The management team knew people well and used audits, surveys and feedback to improve the home.
“The service manager carried out extremely effective quality assurance checks and audits to identify when improvements were needed.” from the report
Controlled drugs storage
needs fixingThere was no controlled drugs cupboard in case a person needed this type of medicine in future. The manager agreed to have one installed.
“The provider did not have a controlled drugs cupboard to store medicines should a person require this.” from the report
Supervision records
minorOne staff member had not had all required supervision meetings recorded. The manager said the records would be completed immediately.
“We checked three staff files and found one staff member had not received all the supervisions required.” from the report
- 01Has the controlled drugs cupboard been installed, and how are medicines stored and checked now?
- 02Were the missing supervision records completed, and how does the home make sure future supervision is recorded?
- 03How would you support my relative's preferred way of communicating, including pictures, signing or videos if needed?
- 04How would my relative be involved in planning reviews, activities, holidays and daily tasks?
- 05How would you support my relative to maintain links with work, education, day services or other community activities?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with visits on 11 and 16 July 2018; the previous overall rating in October 2015 was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 2018 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 House of Light
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 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.