CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Larchfield Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe and well supported. Staff recruitment, staffing levels, risk management, medicines and infection control were all found to be appropriate.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training, supervision and skills. People received appropriate food, drink, equipment and healthcare, and were involved in decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with compassion, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices, maintain independence and have privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed as people's needs changed. Activities reflected people's interests, complaints were handled under the provider's procedure, and end of life wishes were recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was well managed, with approachable leadership and good communication with families. Quality checks, feedback and partnership working were used to improve care.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Larchfield Manor is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with accessible information still a work in progress.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. One inspector spoke with 14 people, four relatives and seven staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment and supervision files, and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and well supported. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training and person-centred care.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Their care plans were up to date, activities reflected their interests, and healthcare needs were met. The management team checked the quality of care and used feedback to make improvements.
The overall rating stayed Good, which was the same as at the previous inspection, published in April 2017. Inspectors noted one minor area still being developed: providing information in formats people with communication needs can understand.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were available, patient and attentive.
“Enough staff were deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people calmly and respectfully. They treated people as individuals and helped protect their dignity and rights.
“Staff treated people as equals. They showed genuine concern for people and were keen to ensure people's rights were upheld and that they were not discriminated against in any way.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were based on people's interests and abilities, with both planned events and choices made on the day.
“There was a planned programme of activities which met people's needs and was tailored to their interests and abilities.” from the report
Good oversight
The management team checked care quality, gathered views from people and staff, and used the results to make improvements.
“Regular checks were completed by the staff and registered manager to make sure people were safe and happy with the service they received.” from the report
Accessible information not complete
minorThe home understood that information should be available in formats people can understand, but this work was not yet finished.
“The registered manager said this was 'a work in progress'.” from the report
- 01What accessible formats can you provide now, and what remains to be completed?
- 02How will you adapt communication for my relative's particular needs?
- 03How will you review my relative's care plan as their needs and preferences change?
- 04Which activities would match my relative's interests and abilities?
- 05How will you keep me informed about changes in my relative's health or care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection published in April 2017. 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Larchfield Manor was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and responsive care, with a mental capacity form needing review.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 18 January 2017. Inspectors reviewed four care records, three staff files and records about how the home was managed. They observed care and spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines arrangements, appropriate risk assessments and a clean, well-maintained home. People received support with food, drink, health needs and activities.
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff treated people with dignity, supported independence and involved people in decisions. The home had a complaints process and systems for checking quality. One mental capacity form was not specific enough to individual decisions, and the manager agreed to review it.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records were complete. Inspectors found medicines were given safely and according to the home's procedures.
“Medicines were administered safely and in line with the registered provider's medicine procedures.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people's dignity, privacy and independence. Inspectors saw staff offer calm reassurance when someone became distressed.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people's independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and preferred ways of receiving support. Activities were arranged around people's interests and social needs.
“Up to date care plans were in place which were reviewed regularly to make sure any changes in needs were identified.” from the report
Good involvement and oversight
The home sought views from people, relatives, staff and professionals. It also used audits, resident meetings, surveys and independent reviews to monitor quality.
“People who used the service and their relatives were invited to attend resident meetings.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingThe mental capacity form did not record decisions specifically enough to meet legal requirements. The manager agreed to review the form's format and effectiveness.
“Although this form made reference to mental capacity, it was not decision specific as required by legislation.” from the report
- 01How do you now record a person's capacity for each specific decision?
- 02What changes were made after inspectors asked for the mental capacity form to be reviewed?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty in the main house and the Coach House?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05How are relatives involved in care decisions and kept informed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection to provide a new rating, covering all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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 Larchfield Manor
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 January 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
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.