CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Larchfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection prevention and control, testing, protective equipment, visiting and COVID-19 vaccination requirements. The inspection did not give a safety rating.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control, with a minor storage issue corrected during the visit.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 13 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home.
The home had COVID-19 testing, visitor screening, infection control procedures and supplies of protective equipment. Staff had been trained and inspectors saw them using protective equipment properly. Cleaning schedules were in place, and visits were being supported in line with guidance.
Inspectors found a couple of areas where unused games and craft materials had not been put away. This was corrected immediately. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
COVID-19 testing
Testing was carried out for residents and staff in line with government guidance. Procedures were in place for symptoms or a positive test.
“A programme of COVID testing for both people living in the home and staff was undertaken in line with current government guidance.” from the report
Protective equipment
There were enough supplies of protective equipment, and staff had been trained to use it. Inspectors observed staff using it appropriately.
“There were sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) available for people.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
Visitors were screened before entering, including checks of vaccination evidence and a negative lateral flow test.
“All visitors, including healthcare professionals, were subject to a range of screening procedures.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
Daily cleaning schedules were in place, including cleaning frequently touched areas.
“All cleaning was undertaken by designated domestic staff, which included touch point cleaning.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
Staff supported residents' social and emotional wellbeing, including helping residents take part in activities outside the home.
“Staff supported the social and emotional wellbeing of residents, which included residents participating in activities outside of the care home.” from the report
Items not stored away
minorUnused board games, crayons and paper were left out in a couple of areas. Inspectors said this could affect infection prevention and control, but the issue was corrected immediately.
“there were a couple of areas which could have impacted on infection prevention and control, such as unused board games, crayons and paper not stored away in cupboards.” from the report
- 01How are COVID-19 testing and infection control arrangements different now from those seen on 13 January 2022?
- 02How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 03How are visitors currently screened and supported to visit residents?
- 04What arrangements are in place for residents to take part in activities outside the home?
- 05When was the home last fully assessed for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other four questions or an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but some medicines and care records were not always complete.
Inspectors visited on 13 February, 22 February and 1 March 2019. One inspector carried out the inspection, with support from a specialist pharmacist on the second day. They spoke with people, staff and a healthcare professional, observed daily care and meals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good hygiene, medicines generally managed safely, kind staff and care plans that mostly reflected people's needs.
There were some areas to improve. Some handwritten medicines entries had not been checked by a second staff member. Some care plans lacked enough detail about how care should be given. Records of staff supervision were unclear, and some people did not know about the complaints procedure.
The rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in February 2018. Inspectors found improvements in staffing and quality checks. No legal breaches were reported in this inspection.
People felt safe and cared for
People told inspectors they were happy living at the home and felt safe and well looked after.
“People were happy living at the service. They told us they felt safe and well looked after.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were patient and friendly. Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“Staff were patient and friendly, and people's privacy and dignity was respected.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing was assessed using people's needs, and inspectors saw enough staff to support people safely and without rushing.
“We observed sufficient numbers of staff on shift to support people safely.” from the report
Activities and choice
People chose activities and interests that suited them. Inspectors saw exercise, gardening and community activities on all three inspection days.
“On all three inspection days we saw people were engaged in activities on offer such as exercise classes, gardening and going out in the community.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home improved from Requires Improvement. Inspectors found better staffing arrangements and improved quality assurance checks.
“At this inspection, we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingHandwritten medicines entries were not always checked by a second staff member for accuracy and completeness. The manager said this would be addressed.
“Hand written entries had been made on the medicine administration records. These had not always been checked by a second staff member to ensure they were accurate and fully completed.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain clearly enough how staff should provide individual care. The manager said they would be reviewed.
“Some care plans did not have detailed guidance on how care was to be delivered.” from the report
Supervision records
minorStaff said they received regular supervision, but the records did not clearly show this. A new annual appraisal system was also due to be introduced.
“Staff said they felt well supported and received regular supervision, but records of this were unclear.” from the report
Complaints information
minorSome people did not know about the complaints procedure, although they said they would raise concerns with staff and staff knew the process.
“Some people were not aware of the provider's complaints procedure but said they would speak to any member of staff if they had any concerns.” from the report
- 01How are handwritten medicines entries checked now, and how do you deal with any errors?
- 02How have you changed care plans so they clearly explain how each person's care should be delivered?
- 03How do you record staff supervision, and has the annual appraisal system now been introduced?
- 04How are new residents and relatives told about the complaints procedure?
- 05What improvements have been made since the previous Requires Improvement rating?
This was a planned inspection of the whole care home, including the premises and care provided, and it covered all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 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 Larchfield
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 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
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.