CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mineral Cottage Residential Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable risks, and there were enough staff to keep people safe. Medicines were given as prescribed, but inspectors recommended better monitoring of the medicine storage temperature.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had needs assessments, trained staff, health action plans and support from health professionals. Staff supported people with food, health and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, respect and dignity. People were supported to make choices, keep relationships and personalise their rooms.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around each person. People were supported with activities and personal goals, including work, education, community activities and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Leadership was viewed positively, but the quality assurance system was not robust enough. Some audits were too brief and did not clearly show what had been checked.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Mineral Cottage Residential Home Limited was rated Good overall, but inspectors found the quality monitoring system needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive inspection visit on 14 December 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, the registered manager and relatives. They also checked care records, medicines, training, safety checks and quality monitoring.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by enough trained staff, treated kindly and helped to make choices and take part in activities, education, work and community life.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The main issue was that quality checks did not always contain enough detail to show what had been checked. Inspectors also made recommendations about recruitment records and medicine storage temperatures.
The overall rating stayed Good and inspectors found no serious risks or concerns. The report says the home met its registration requirements.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found a warm atmosphere and positive relationships between people and staff. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them and there was a homely, caring atmosphere in the home.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to follow their interests and achieve personal goals. Staff helped people take part in activities, work, education and community life.
“People had opportunities to participate in activities that met their individual needs.” from the report
Safe medicines processes
Inspectors found that people received their prescribed medicines and the medicines administration records had no gaps.
“People received the medicines they were prescribed. Medication Administration Records (MAR) were completed in full with no gaps.” from the report
Health support
People had health action plans and were supported to obtain treatment and advice from health professionals when needed.
“People were supported to stay healthy and to obtain treatment when needed.” from the report
Quality checks lacked detail
needs fixingThe monthly quality checklist did not clearly explain what was being checked. This meant the provider’s monitoring system did not always identify issues found during the inspection.
“However, the registered manager's monthly checklist contained very brief information and lacked the detail of what was being looked at.” from the report
Medicine storage temperature
needs fixingThe medicine storage area shared space with washing equipment, and its temperature was not documented. Inspectors recommended getting guidance about safe medicine storage.
“However, the room where medicines were stored shared space with washing equipment and potentially the temperature could rise above safe storage temperatures.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorThe home was recruiting safely overall, but some records did not match the provider’s policy. Application forms and interview records were not available as described in the policy.
“We spoke with the registered manager about this as no application forms were on record.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the quality audit tools since the inspection?
- 02How is the temperature of the medicine storage area checked and recorded now?
- 03Are recruitment interviews and other recruitment checks now fully recorded?
- 04How will you support my relative to take part in activities that match their interests and personal goals?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in care planning and decisions?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the overall rating had not changed since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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 Mineral Cottage Residential Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Mineral Cottage Residential Home Limited →
- June 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 April 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
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.