CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Templefields
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitors, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 December 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment and testing safely. They were also assured about cleaning, hygiene, outbreak management and the infection control policy.
People continued with interests such as arts and crafts and music during lockdown. The home was also exploring ways for people to see relatives safely.
Testing arrangements
The home had a system for monitoring coronavirus testing and results.
“The registered manager had a system to monitor covid testing and test results efficiently.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
Cleaning schedules were used across the staff team, with high-touch areas cleaned regularly.
“Cleaning schedules were in place which were supported by the whole staff team.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People continued with interests during lockdown, and the home was exploring safe ways to support contact with relatives.
“People were supported to continue their interests during the national lockdown such as arts and crafts and music.” from the report
Monitoring people's health
People's temperatures were checked during the day to help identify changes.
“People had their temperatures taken throughout the day to monitor any changes.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing visits from relatives and other visitors?
- 02How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and how is this recorded?
- 03How are coronavirus testing and test results monitored for people and staff?
- 04How do you manage infection risks when admitting someone new to the home?
- 05How are activities and contact with relatives supported if infection control restrictions change?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated overall and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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.
What inspectors found, June 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found dedicated staff but serious gaps in safeguarding, training, records and management oversight.
This was an unannounced planned inspection in February and March 2020. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with staff and a commissioner, and reviewed care plans, policies and other records. The second planned inspection day was cancelled because of COVID-19 risks, so some evidence was checked remotely.
The home supported 12 people with autism and/or learning disabilities, although it was registered for 14. Inspectors found that leadership and oversight had weakened. This affected safety, person-centred care, people's choices, staff support and the quality of records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found important shortfalls and limited assurance that care was consistently safe and effective. The previous overall rating was Good, published in September 2017.
Committed staff
Inspectors found that staff were dedicated and genuinely cared about the people they supported. They also saw good rapport between some staff and residents.
“Staff were very dedicated and committed to people at the service.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to take part in activities and maintain relationships both inside and outside the home.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities that were socially and culturally relevant and appropriate to them, including in the wider community.” from the report
Building safety
Safety checks for the building had been completed and recorded, with the relevant certificates available.
“Checks to ensure the building was safe and met legal requirements were completed, recorded and certificates were in place.” from the report
Specialist support
The home could access several professionals and agencies to support people's health and care needs.
“The provider had a number of inhouse professionals who could be called upon to offer specialist advice and support.” from the report
Safeguarding and restraint records
seriousThe home could not show that people were consistently protected from abusive or improper practices. Records about restraint and incidents were inadequate, with limited evidence that lessons had been learned.
“The service could not adequately evidence they were protecting people from the risk of abusive practices.” from the report
Risk management
seriousSome essential risk assessments were missing, and risk-reduction measures were too general to guide staff safely.
“Some risk assessments were detailed but some essential risk assessments were missing, and risk reduction measures were often generic.” from the report
Staff training and support
seriousSome required training was out of date and competency checks were not available. Staff supervision and appraisals were also not happening as often as required.
“The registered manager had not ensured all staff training and competence checks had been updated.” from the report
Leadership and oversight
seriousManagement checks had not reliably found or fixed problems. Poor records and ineffective audits contributed to a deterioration in standards.
“Quality assurance processes had not identified all the areas which needed to improve.” from the report
Choice and personalised care
needs fixingSome staff made decisions on people's behalf and some care was task-based rather than personalised. People's choices and control had been limited by the needs of another resident.
“We were concerned some staff were making choices on people's behalf and some staff were not providing care in a person-centred way.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to safeguarding procedures and the recording and review of restraint since the inspection?
- 02Are all risk assessments now complete, specific to each person and linked clearly to their care plans?
- 03Are all staff training and competency checks up to date, and are supervision and appraisals happening at the required frequency?
- 04How does the home make sure people have genuine choice and control, especially where one person's needs affect other residents?
- 05What evidence can you show that the improvement plan has led to sustained changes in audits, records and day-to-day care?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, but the second onsite day was cancelled because of COVID-19 risks and some evidence was checked remotely. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 2020 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 Templefields
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 December 2010.
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.