CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Roberttown Care Home Limited
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some safety monitoring and record keeping needing further improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 November 2019. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, the manager and staff. They reviewed care records, recruitment files, medicines records and quality checks, and observed care.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found improved risk management, suitable recruitment checks, trained staff, safe medicines systems and kind, person-centred care.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement and published in December 2018. The provider was no longer in breach of the regulations identified at that inspection. Inspectors still said some safety monitoring needed strengthening and some care records were not completed consistently.
Improved risk management
Care records contained current information about people's support and risks. Environmental checks and emergency plans were also in place.
“Care records contained up to date and consistent information about the support people received and areas of risk that needed monitoring.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw compassionate care, and people said staff understood their preferences and supported their dignity and independence.
“Staff were observed providing kind, compassionate and dignified care.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The activities co-ordinator arranged activities around people's interests and suggestions. Relatives and people said the home was welcoming.
“People's likes, and preferences were considered; activities were arranged around people's suggestions.” from the report
Stronger leadership and monitoring
The home had a range of audits and a digital system for recording important information. Action plans were identified and completed in a timely way.
“Systems and processes to monitor the quality and safety of care had improved since the last inspection.” from the report
Safety monitoring
needs fixingInspectors found several areas where safety monitoring needed to be stronger. The home responded immediately to the inspectors' feedback.
“However, we identified several areas of safety monitoring that needed to be strengthened.” from the report
Uneven care records
needs fixingMost records contained good person-centred information, but some documentation was not completed as thoroughly as in other records.
“We did highlight that some documentation was not as thoroughly completed across all care records we checked.” from the report
- 01Which areas of safety monitoring did inspectors say needed strengthening, and what action has been taken since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that every person's care record is completed consistently and kept up to date?
- 03How do you respond when staffing levels are stretched or people feel more staff are needed?
- 04How are activities matched to each person's interests, preferences and abilities?
- 05How are people's end of life wishes recorded and reviewed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered the overall service and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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, December 2018
Rated Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care but ongoing safety, staffing and management shortfalls.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 25 October and 2 November 2018. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, looked around the home and checked care, staff and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Staffing levels were suitable during the visit, and people had individual moving and mobility risk assessments. However, important records were not always accurate or up to date. This included emergency evacuation plans, care plans, safety concerns and medicines records.
People were treated with kindness and had a good range of activities. They had choices about food and received support from health professionals. However, most staff did not receive regular supervision or appraisals, and the home's checks had failed to find several problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement, for the third time. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Kind and personal care
People described staff as caring, and inspectors observed patient, personalised support. Staff encouraged people to make choices and remain independent.
“Staff interactions with people were caring and personalised.” from the report
Activities
People received regular activities suited to their interests. These included music, hobbies, time in the garden and daily individual conversations or activities.
“There was a good range of activities and people received one-to-one activity time on a daily basis.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People could choose their meals and alternatives were available. Weight was monitored, and referrals to healthcare professionals were made when needed.
“People were able to choose what to eat for each meal and alternatives were available if they changed their mind.” from the report
Staffing during the visit
Inspectors found enough staff on the inspection days to meet people's needs. The atmosphere was calm and staff were not rushed.
“During the inspection we found there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Staff support was not regular
seriousOnly eight of 28 staff had received an appraisal in the previous 12 months, and most staff had received only two supervisions during 2018.
“Staff did not have access to regular supervisions or appraisals.” from the report
Care and safety records were unreliable
seriousCare plans did not always reflect people's current needs, and some safety concerns were not recorded or referred. Daily records were also sometimes written before the shift had finished.
“The provider's systems had not identified the concerns we found in relation up-to-date information for people's care and support needs” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingAudits did not identify several discrepancies, and records of some audits could not be found. Staff feedback and involvement in improving the home were also not properly recorded.
“The registered provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the performance of Roberttown Care Home however these systems were not robust enough to identify and drive all necessary improvements.” from the report
Some recruitment checks were incomplete
seriousGaps in three staff members' employment histories had not been checked, and one reference arrived after the person had started work. The home also initially relied on the agency to confirm agency workers' skills.
“Staff files showed gaps in three people's employment histories had not been checked and interview notes were not retained for these staff members.” from the report
- 01Have all personal emergency evacuation plans been checked and corrected, including information about whether each person needs a frame or wheelchair?
- 02How are safeguarding concerns and verbal concerns now recorded and referred?
- 03How do you make sure care plans and daily records reflect people's current needs and the care they received?
- 04How many staff have now received their required supervision and appraisal, and how often will this happen?
- 05How do you check the skills, employment history and references of agency and permanent staff before they work at the home?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with the home, care provided, records, staff and management systems examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 December 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 Roberttown Care Home Limited
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Roberttown Care Home Limited →
- December 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Roberttown Care Home Limited →
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 July 2012.
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 Kirklees
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 £1,260 a week. 86 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.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.