CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Leeming Bar Grange Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control arrangements, including protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
- 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, although inspectors noted adapted activities and support for communication.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed as a separate rated question. Inspectors noted that quality checks and communication systems for infection control were in place.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Leeming Bar Grange Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 February 2021. It looked at how well the home was preventing and controlling coronavirus infection.
Inspectors found appropriate protective equipment, visitor checks, testing arrangements, social distancing and extra cleaning. They were assured that the home had suitable measures to prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
The home also supported visits from relatives, social activities and video calls. Staff received infection control training and checks on using protective equipment safely.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to use protective equipment, provide track and trace information, show a negative Covid-19 test and have their temperature checked.
“All essential visitors had to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Family contact
The home organised visits in a designated safe area, with cleaning and protective equipment procedures in place.
“People were supported to receive organised visits from relatives in a designated safe area with robust cleaning and PPE procedures in place.” from the report
Social wellbeing
Activities were adapted for smaller groups, and staff helped people use technology to keep in touch with others.
“Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing.” from the report
Infection control systems
The home had enough protective equipment, carried out extra cleaning and gave staff infection control training and checks.
“The home had ample supplies of appropriate PPE which was stored hygienically and kept safe.” from the report
Management checks
The registered manager used quality checks and regular communication to keep staff updated about infection control.
“The registered manager had quality systems in place to check the service was providing safe care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are relatives' visits organised, and what protective equipment or testing is currently required?
- 03How often are communal areas and frequently touched surfaces cleaned and recorded?
- 04How are staff trained and checked on the safe use of protective equipment?
- 05What are the home's current overall and five-question CQC ratings?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but some care records needed updating and communal areas looked tired.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 and 10 March 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, good infection control, kind care and activities that reflected people's interests.
There were some shortcomings. Care plans and risk assessments were not always updated when people's needs changed. Some shared areas looked tired and worn, although the manager said refurbishment was planned.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found a service that was meeting the required standards at the time of this inspection. The previous overall rating was also Good, while the Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, support activities and help people attend medical appointments.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs, to enable people to take part in social activities and to attend medical appointments.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. People said they received them on time.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were involved in their care and supported to make choices. Staff protected their dignity and encouraged independence.
“People's privacy and dignity was maintained. Staff were knowledgeable about how to do this and care plans supported this.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in varied activities, spend time with others or choose quieter one-to-one contact.
“People enjoyed the social activities arranged for them. They did arts and crafts, quizzes, board games and entertainers came into the service offering exercise sessions and musical afternoons.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had systems to check quality and act on concerns. Inspectors found that the Well-led rating had improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“At this inspection we found the new provider had audited the systems and ensured notifications were submitted where necessary.” from the report
Care records not always up to date
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments did not fully reflect people's current needs. Examples included the equipment needed for mobility and details of medical conditions affecting breathing.
“Care plans and risk assessments needed reviewing when people's needs changed.” from the report
Tired communal areas
minorSome shared areas needed refurbishment and redecoration. The manager said this was a priority and that money had been set aside for improvements.
“The environment needed refurbishment and redecoration as a number of communal areas looked 'tired and worn'.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure care plans and risk assessments are updated promptly when someone's needs change?
- 02Have the mobility care records been updated to state the correct hoist and sling for each person?
- 03How are respiratory care needs and relevant medical conditions recorded and reviewed?
- 04Which communal areas have been refurbished since the inspection, and what work is still planned?
- 05How do you check that statutory notifications are submitted to the CQC when required?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with the previous ratings used to inform the inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 April 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.
Every inspection of Leeming Bar Grange Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Leeming Bar Grange Care Home →
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Leeming Bar Grange Care Home →
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Inspected but not ratedEffective: Requires improvement
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 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.