CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Anne's, Huddersfield Mental Health Services
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Most people said they felt safe. Risks, medicines, staffing, building checks and infection control were managed appropriately, and action had been taken to reassure one person who did not always feel safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had completed mandatory and role-related training and received supervision and appraisals. People were supported with food, religious dietary needs, healthcare and day-to-day choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were calm, patient, kind and non-judgemental. People said their privacy, dignity and personal relationships were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's goals, support needs and plans for relapse or crisis. People were supported to use the local community, join activities and prepare for more independent living.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff spoke positively about the management team, and regular meetings, audits and feedback systems were in place. However, one operational visit record was not clearly separated for this home, and some areas such as medicines and care plans had not been checked in that record.
What inspectors found, March 2019
St Anne's, Huddersfield Mental Health Services was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred support, with some quality-checking records needing improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 25 January 2019. Four people lived there, and inspectors spoke with three of them, the registered manager, the deputy manager and two support workers. They reviewed two care plans and two medication records, as well as information held before the visit.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found that medicines, risks, staffing, infection control and safeguarding were managed appropriately. People were supported to make choices, build independence, access healthcare and take part in community activities.
Staff were described as kind, patient and respectful. Care plans recorded people's mental health needs, relapse indicators and personal goals. The main weakness was that one operational visit record covered two homes, making it difficult to see what applied to this home, and some checks had not been recorded there.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection. Inspectors found no evidence of serious risks or concerns and said the home's systems generally provided effective oversight.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff supported people calmly and without taking over. They encouraged people to practise everyday skills and respected their privacy and dignity.
“Throughout our inspection we saw support workers responding to people using a calm and thoughtful approach.” from the report
Support for independence
People were helped to take more responsibility for medicines, daily tasks and their future move to more independent living.
“People were encouraged to do things for themselves, such as taking their medicines or making their bed,” from the report
Personalised recovery plans
Care plans recorded individual histories, support needs, objectives and relapse indicators. People were involved in reviewing their progress each month.
“Every section was person-centred and started with a relevant history and details of the support they needed.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Staff were trained and checked as competent. People who self-administered received a week's supply and were monitored to make sure this was safe.
“We looked at the management of medicines and found this was consistently safe.” from the report
Community activities
People could access the local community and took part in activities such as day centres, arts and crafts, walking, swimming and trips out.
“People had varied activities programmes to prevent them from becoming socially isolated.” from the report
Quality checks were not clearly separated
needs fixingAn operational visit record covered two homes, making it difficult to identify what applied to this home. The record did not check some areas, including medicines and care plans.
“However, medicines and care plans, for example, were not checked.” from the report
- 01How are medicines and care plans checked now, following the inspectors' comment that these were not checked in one operational visit record?
- 02How do you make sure quality records clearly show what applies to this home when visits cover more than one home?
- 03How are people supported if they say they do not feel safe?
- 04How do you check that people who self-administer their medicines continue to do so safely?
- 05What progress has each person made towards their recovery goals and moving to more independent living?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; inspectors spoke with three of the four people living at the home and reviewed two care plans and two medication records. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 March 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, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised support, with some reporting and fire-planning improvements needed.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 17 October 2016. They spoke with three people, the manager and two support workers. They reviewed three care files, medicine records, staff training records, audits and policies.
The home supported four adults with mental health problems. Inspectors found people felt safe, medicines were managed safely and risks were assessed. Staff were trained and supported people to make choices, stay independent, manage their health and take part in activities.
People described staff as caring and respectful. Care plans were detailed, personal and linked to recovery goals. The home had regular meetings, complaint handling and quality checks. However, one safeguarding concern had not been reported to the CQC, and individual fire evacuation plans were not yet in place.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection in February 2014 found the home compliant with all regulations inspected at that time.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were managed safely and in ways that matched each person's abilities. Staff used clear protocols for medicines taken only when needed.
“Medicines were managed and administered safely at Beech Street.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans were based on recovery goals and included detailed information about people's needs, warning signs and crisis plans.
“People's care plans were detailed and person-centred.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw warm and supportive interactions. People said staff knew them well, listened to them and respected their privacy.
“We observed interactions between staff and people which were kind and involved humour which people reciprocated.” from the report
Promoting independence
People could make choices about their routines, food, activities and time in the community. Staff supported people to build skills for greater independence.
“Staff supported people to regain and maintain their independence.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager was described as approachable and supportive. Audits, meetings and feedback systems were used to monitor the service and look for improvements.
“A comprehensive system of audits was in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Missed safeguarding notification
needs fixingOne safeguarding concern reported to the local authority was not reported to the CQC as required. The manager apologised and said reporting procedures would be reviewed.
“We found one safeguarding notification which should have been made to CQC had been missed.” from the report
- 01Has the missed safeguarding notification been reviewed, and what changes were made to the reporting procedure?
- 02Are individual personal fire evacuation plans now in place for every person?
- 03How are people involved in setting and reviewing their recovery goals and support plans?
- 04How would staff recognise a change in my relative's mental health, and what would they do if they became unwell?
- 05How will staff support my relative to manage medicines and daily activities while keeping them as independent as possible?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and reviewing the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 2016 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 St Anne's, Huddersfield Mental Health Services
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Anne's, Huddersfield Mental Health Services →
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Anne's, Huddersfield Mental Health Services →
- July 2014Inspected but not rated
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2013.
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.