CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Taptonholme
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, risks were assessed, staffing levels met people's needs and medicines were administered safely. Some documentation could be improved, and the manager was seeking support about consistent incident reporting.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Inspectors nevertheless observed positive, respectful and person-centred interactions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Quality monitoring systems were in place and managers used them to make improvements. People, relatives and staff said management was approachable, listened and kept them informed.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and strong management, with some records and reporting processes needing improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 12 and 21 December 2023. Inspectors looked at whether the home was safe and well-led. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and commissioners, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. People said they felt safe and received good care. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines procedures, infection controls and detailed risk assessments.
Inspectors saw respectful, person-centred care. Staff were described as knowledgeable and supportive. The home had quality checks and acted on issues, although some documentation needed improvement and the local authority had identified over-reporting of some incidents.
The ratings for Safe and Well-led were both Good. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that the home kept people safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“Everyone we spoke with told us the staff made them feel safe and provided good care and support.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw staff respond promptly and found staff were available in communal areas. People said they did not wait long for help.
“We observed staff were available to support people when required and were visible in communal areas.” from the report
Person-centred care
Staff knew people well and inspectors observed care that was individualised, respectful and supportive of people's wellbeing.
“We observed interactions between staff and people who used the service these were positive, inclusive, respectful, and person-centred, promoting people's well-being.” from the report
Good management checks
The home used audits and other checks to identify issues and make improvements. Staff said they felt supported by the management team.
“Quality monitoring systems were in place that were robust and detailed.” from the report
Some records needed improvement
needs fixingInspectors found that some documentation could be improved. The managers' monitoring systems had already identified this, and the home sent evidence that it had been completed after the visit.
“We identified some documentation could be improved. However, this had already been picked up by the managers quality monitoring systems and was being addressed.” from the report
Incident reporting needed consistency
needs fixingThe local authority found that the manager was over-reporting some incidents and that some incidents did not need to be reported. The manager was seeking further support to improve consistency.
“The local authority had identified the registered manager was over reporting and some incidents were not required to be reported.” from the report
- 01Which documentation was found to need improvement, and can you show us what was completed after the inspection?
- 02What support has the manager received to make incident reporting consistent?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given and recorded correctly?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff available when people need help?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected this time?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 2023 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, June 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 May 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found the home was very clean. Staff used cleaning schedules, suitable cleaning products and appropriate personal protective equipment. COVID-19 testing, safe admissions and procedures for responding to symptoms or positive tests were in place.
The home had arranged visits in line with government guidance. Visitors booked in advance, took a COVID-19 test before entering and wore personal protective equipment. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean premises
Inspectors found the premises very clean and saw that staff used detailed cleaning schedules and suitable products.
“The premises were very clean. Staff followed detailed cleaning schedules to ensure all areas of the home were regularly cleaned.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
Staff had infection control training, enough personal protective equipment was available, and inspectors observed staff using it appropriately.
“Staff had received training about how to keep people safe from the risk of infection and how to use personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly.” from the report
Testing and admissions
The home carried out COVID-19 testing and checked that new people had recently tested negative before they arrived.
“Tests for COVID-19 were being carried out in line with government guidance, by both staff and people living in the home.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home supported visits during the pandemic through advance booking, testing and the use of personal protective equipment.
“The home had a suitable system in place to support relatives and friends to visit people living in the home during the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently arranged, and are visitors still asked to follow testing or personal protective equipment requirements?
- 02How do you check new residents for infection before they move into the home?
- 03What happens if a resident or staff member develops symptoms or tests positive for COVID-19?
- 04How often are communal areas and other parts of the home cleaned, and how is this recorded?
- 05What current information can you provide about areas not assessed in this targeted inspection, such as care, medicines and staffing?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not assess the other quality areas and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 June 2021 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 Taptonholme
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 76 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.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.