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
- People felt safe and staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse. Risk assessments, fire safety checks, staffing arrangements and medicine systems were in place, although some medicine training had recently expired.
- Effective?
- Good
- The home used recognised mental health support models and helped people with healthy eating, healthcare and daily living skills. Staff had regular supervision and appraisal, but some training certificates had recently expired.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind, calm and respectful. Inspectors saw strong support for privacy, dignity, equality, diversity and independent living.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded individual goals, support needs, relapse indicators and crisis arrangements. People were supported with activities, holidays, community access, complaints and planning for future accommodation.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff liked the manager, and staff felt listened to and supported. Monthly audits were completed, but provider area-manager reports did not show information specific to this home.
What inspectors found, June 2019
St Anne's, Huddersfield Mental Health Services was rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful support with some staff training needing renewal.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with five people living at the home, the manager and three staff. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment and training records, building checks and quality monitoring.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and valued the support they received. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and systems to manage risks and medicines.
The home supported people to build independence. People prepared meals, booked medical appointments, managed money and, where able, managed their own medicines. Care plans were personalised and included crisis plans, recovery goals and people's end of life wishes.
Some training certificates, including medicine training, had recently expired. The manager knew about this and was taking action. Inspectors also said visits by the provider's area manager did not separate information about this home from other services.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise abuse and reduce risks both inside the home and in the community.
“People were safe living at this service and staff knew how to protect people from harm.” from the report
Building independence
People were supported to do more for themselves, including preparing food, booking appointments, managing money and accessing the community.
“People were supported to access the community independently and with staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People said staff were kind and supportive. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity, equality and human rights were actively respected.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans recorded people's individual goals, support needs, mental health warning signs and crisis arrangements. People were involved in creating and reviewing their plans.
“Every section was person-centred and started with a relevant history and details of the support they needed.” from the report
Supportive leadership
Staff said the manager was approachable and valued their wellbeing. Meetings and supervision helped staff discuss people's welfare and their own support needs.
“Staff felt well supported through a regular programme of supervision and appraisal.” from the report
Some training had expired
needs fixingSome staff training certificates, including medicine training, had recently expired. The manager was aware and was taking steps to address this.
“Medication training for staff had recently expired, although we saw the registered manager was aware of this and was taking action.” from the report
Provider monitoring was not home-specific
minorThe area manager's operational visit reports covered a group of services and did not separate out information about this home. This made it harder for inspectors to see evidence specific to the home.
“These reports did not separate out feedback by each service. This meant we were unable to see information specific to this home.” from the report
Limited technology evidence
minorInspectors found limited evidence that technology was being used to support people's communication or care. A smart speaker had been withdrawn because of confidentiality advice.
“Evidence of access to the use of technology was limited.” from the report
- 01Has all expired medicine and other staff training now been renewed, and how do you check staff competence?
- 02How are risk assessments and crisis plans reviewed when someone's mental health changes?
- 03How will provider monitoring reports show information specific to this home?
- 04What communication technology is currently available, and how are confidentiality concerns managed?
- 05How will residents be supported to build independence and move on to their own accommodation where appropriate?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions, using discussions, observations and records including two care plans. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 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 St Anne's, Huddersfield Mental Health Services
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Anne's, Huddersfield Mental Health Services →
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 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.