CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Huddersfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk assessment, staffing, medicines and infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support from trained staff and were helped with food, healthcare and independent living. Their mental health was monitored each day.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in everyday decisions and encouraged to be independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's needs, wishes and preferences. People were supported with activities, work opportunities, family relationships and raising concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff were positive about the service, and regular audits and meetings were used to monitor quality. Inspectors noted limited recorded evidence of using the latest mental health practice.
What inspectors found, August 2019
St Anne's Community Services - Huddersfield was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with limited evidence of up-to-date mental health practice.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector on 26 July 2019. The inspector spoke with people, staff, managers and a relative. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, incident records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated with respect. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, independence, health and relationships.
Medicines, staffing, safeguarding and infection control were found to be well managed. The home used risk assessments and positive risk-taking, without restricting people's freedom unnecessarily. Inspectors did identify a lack of recorded evidence showing how the home used the latest mental health practice to improve care.
Safe medicines
Medicines were organised and people received them as prescribed. Staff had completed training and checks showed medicine stocks were accurate.
“Medicines systems were organised, and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and relationships appeared relaxed and friendly. People said staff listened to them and respected them.
“We saw people and staff were comfortable and relaxed with each other and we heard friendly banter between people and staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about their day, prepare food and manage medicines where this was safe. They had keys to their bedrooms and could come and go freely.
“People were encouraged to be as independent as possible in all aspects of their daily lives.” from the report
Good oversight
The home and provider carried out regular checks and audits. Staff and people could give feedback through meetings.
“Regular checks and audits were completed at the service.” from the report
Limited evidence of current practice
needs fixingInspectors could not find enough recorded evidence showing how the home was using the most up-to-date mental health practice to improve care. This was discussed with the management team.
“There was a lack of recorded evidence to show how the service was using the most up to date best mental health practice to improve care.” from the report
- 01What up-to-date mental health guidance or practice is now being used, and how is this recorded?
- 02How often will the manager review evidence that mental health support is improving people's outcomes?
- 03How often are agency staff used, and how are they helped to understand each person's needs and preferences?
- 04How are people involved in reviewing their care plans and mental health recovery goals?
- 05How are medicines self-management arrangements checked and reviewed for each person?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five CQC questions assessed; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 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, January 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred support, with a registration condition needing correction.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 21 October 2016. Inspectors met three people, spoke with staff and managers, observed support, looked around the home, and checked care, staff and management records.
The home supported six adults with mental health problems. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicine systems, detailed care plans and appropriate safeguarding arrangements. People were supported to stay independent, manage their health and work towards moving into their own accommodation.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report also noted that the registration condition allowed up to 20 people, although the home only had room for six. The provider said it would take action to change this to six.
Mental health support
Staff recognised signs that people might become distressed or unwell and acted promptly. Inspectors found this helped people remain well.
“Staff readily identified triggers that would lead people to become distressed or indicate that their mental health was deteriorating.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and tailored to each person. Staff used their knowledge of people's preferences, history and goals to guide support.
“The support plans and assessments clearly outlined each person's individual needs and were completely person-centred.” from the report
Independence
People cooked, went out daily and took part in work, courses, holidays and community activities. The service helped people work towards less supported accommodation.
“People led very independent lives and we heard that people went on holidays, attended courses, sought voluntary and paid employment and engaged in community activities each day.” from the report
Staff training and teamwork
Staff had training for mental health support, emergencies and other key areas. They worked closely together and felt able to raise concerns.
“Staff told us there was good communication within the team and they worked well together.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider used regular audits to review areas such as medicines, infection control and staff learning. Inspectors found that action plans were used to make improvements.
“Monthly audits of all aspects of the service, such as infection control, medication and learning and development for staff were completed.” from the report
Registration limit
needs fixingThe registration condition allowed up to 20 people, although the home only had space for six. The area manager said action would be taken to change the condition to six.
“There is only room in the home for six people so we discussed the need to vary this condition with the area manager who undertook to ensure action was taken to change the conditions to a maximum of six people.” from the report
- 01Has the registration condition been changed so that the maximum number of people is six?
- 02How do staff recognise changes in a person's mental health, and what action do they take if someone becomes unwell?
- 03How are care plans and risk assessments updated when a person's needs or goals change?
- 04How are medicines checked when people self-medicate, and what happens if staff take over medicine support?
- 05How does the home support people to move into their own accommodation or other less supported housing?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality areas, with inspectors meeting three people and reviewing care, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 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 Huddersfield
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 March 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 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.