CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at SignHealth Constance Way
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines, safeguarding, infection control, recruitment and risk management were generally safe. They found some missing records about mental health support, and room temperature checks for medicines had not initially been completed, but checks were put in place immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection. The report says staff supported people in line with the Mental Capacity Act principles, but mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always documented.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection. People and relatives gave positive feedback, and inspectors observed warm and positive interactions between people and staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection. Care was described as person-centred, with detailed communication information, regular care reviews and activities chosen with people's involvement.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found supportive management, regular reviews and an improvement plan. However, some medicine and care-plan audits had not identified issues found during the inspection, and the home's registration did not include its work with people with learning disabilities.
What inspectors found, February 2024
SignHealth Constance Way was rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, but some records and quality checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection. The inspection activity ran from 15 to 29 January 2024, with a visit on 15 January. One inspector and a British Sign Language interpreter carried out the inspection. They spoke with five people, one relative and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were generally managed safely, risks were understood, staff were trained and able to communicate using British Sign Language, and the home was clean. People were supported to be independent, including with some medicines, activities and community involvement.
There were some weaknesses. Support for mental health needs was not always recorded. Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always documented as required by the home's policies. Audits had also failed to identify some medicine and care-plan issues. Inspectors made a recommendation about recording mental capacity decisions.
Communication and staff skills
The home had a consistent team with appropriate training. Staff communicated with people using British Sign Language.
“People were supported by a consistent team who had the appropriate skills and training. All staff communicated with people using British Sign Language.” from the report
Person-centred care
People were involved in reviewing their care, choosing activities and making decisions about meals. They were encouraged to be independent and develop their skills.
“People were encouraged to be independent and enhance their skills.” from the report
Positive relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about the care and management. Inspectors saw warm interactions, and people said they felt listened to and respected.
“People told us they felt listened to and respected by staff.” from the report
Some care was not recorded
needs fixingInspectors found examples where mental health monitoring and support had not been recorded. The manager acted after this was raised.
“We found a couple of examples where monitoring and support provided in relation to people's mental health needs had not been recorded” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingThe home was following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, but decision-specific assessments and best-interest decisions were not always recorded in line with its own policies.
“However, decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not being documented in line with the provider's own policies.” from the report
Quality checks missed issues
needs fixingMedicine and care-plan audits had not found some of the problems identified by inspectors. The management team was taking action through its improvement plan.
“Some improvements were required with medicines and care plan audits as these had not identified some issues found during this inspection.” from the report
Mixed staffing feedback
minorStaffing levels were judged safe and inspectors found no evidence that people's needs were unmet. However, people gave mixed feedback, including that the home had been a little short staffed, and there had been recent staff changes.
“Some people commented on always enough staff being on shift, other people told us there had been recent changes in staffing and one person told us the service was "a bit short staffed".” from the report
Registration needed updating
needs fixingThe home was supporting people with learning disabilities, but this was not included in its registration. The manager said immediate action would be taken to update it.
“The providing was caring for people with learning disabilities, but this was not included in their registration.” from the report
- 01How do you now record support and monitoring for people's mental health needs?
- 02How do you record decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions?
- 03What changes have been made to staffing since the recent staff changes, and how do you make sure there are enough staff on each shift?
- 04Has the home's registration been updated to include support for people with learning disabilities?
- 05How have medicine and care-plan audits been improved so that they identify problems promptly?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the report does not give new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 2024 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines records and audits needing closer checking.
Inspectors visited on 14 and 28 July 2017 without warning. They spoke with four people, two support workers and managers. They observed care, checked three care records and five staff files, and reviewed medicines, staffing, training and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said staff were kind, helpful and respectful. The home supported people's communication through British Sign Language and involved people in their care, meals, activities and goals.
Medicines were stored and given safely, but records and audits needed further checking. Some care records also needed review. The provider had identified these issues, and medicines protocols were put in place during the inspection.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in April 2016, when it was rated Requires Improvement overall. Inspectors said the previous requirements had been met.
Communication
The home was designed for profoundly deaf people. British Sign Language was used by people and most staff, and interpreters were arranged when needed.
“This meant communication between staff and people who used the service was very effective.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were helpful and kind. Inspectors observed staff respecting people's dignity, privacy and decisions.
“We observed that staff treated people with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personal choice
People chose their meals, activities and routines. Care plans recorded their decisions and choices.
“People were involved in the decisions about the care they wished to receive.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The service had addressed the requirements from the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement overall.
“At this inspection we found the service had now met those requirements.” from the report
Support for goals and interests
Staff helped people with hobbies, education, employment needs and everyday living skills.
“Staff supported people to achieve these aspirations.” from the report
Medicines checks
needs fixingMedicines were administered and stored safely, but audits had not always spotted missing protocols for as-required medicines. The protocols were put in place by the second day of the inspection.
“However we found audits had not always identified the lack of medicines protocol sheets for medicines that were 'as required'.” from the report
Care records needed review
minorSome care records were not fully up to date or complete. The provider's audit had identified these shortfalls, but they still needed reviewing.
“Some records still required reviewing but we found that the providers audit had identified these shortfalls in people's care records.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicines records and as-required medicine protocols are complete and accurate?
- 02How often are care plans and other care records reviewed, and who checks that missing information is corrected?
- 03How will you support my relative to communicate in British Sign Language with all staff and visiting professionals?
- 04How will my relative be involved in decisions about their care, meals, activities and personal goals?
- 05What has changed since the April 2016 inspection, when the service was rated Requires Improvement overall?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, with checks of care, medicines, staffing, training, records and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 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 SignHealth Constance Way
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
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.