Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Trinity Fold

Goodpublished 20 February 2020, 6 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visiting, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and outbreak management. No rating was awarded because this was a targeted inspection.
Effective?
Good
Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
Caring?
Good
Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
Responsive?
Requires improvement
Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
Well-led?
Good
Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2020

Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.

This was an announced, targeted inspection on 5 November 2020. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control measures because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.

Inspectors were assured about visitor controls, shielding, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks. They were also assured that the infection control policy was up to date.

The home was inspected but not rated. This visit looked at infection control only, so it does not give a new rating for the wider quality of care.

What inspectors praised
  • Testing arrangements

    The home was using the government testing scheme for people living there and staff.

    “The service was accessing the government testing scheme.” from the report
  • Keeping families in touch

    Staff helped people maintain contact with relatives and friends by phone and video call. The registered manager also shared information about visiting decisions and restrictions.

    “Staff supported people to stay in contact with relatives and friends via phone and video calling.” from the report
  • Clear information about restrictions

    People were given pictorial guides to help them understand the restrictions in place.

    “People had been provided with pictorial guides to help them understand the restrictions in place.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What infection prevention and control measures are in place now, and how are they checked?
  2. 02How are visitors managed if there is an infection risk or outbreak?
  3. 03How are people living here and staff tested when testing is needed?
  4. 04How will the home help my relative keep in touch with family if visiting is restricted?
  5. 05What information can you provide about the wider quality of care, which this inspection did not rate?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and no new ratings were given for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 November 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2020

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and better management, but activities were not always enough.

Inspectors visited unannounced on 7 and 10 January 2020. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and management records.

The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People generally felt safe and were happy with the care. Staff were kind, trained and respectful. Medicines, staffing, infection control and healthcare support were managed well.

Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. People said there were fewer activities after the activity organiser left. Inspectors also found that some end of life care plans did not contain enough detail. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, and the earlier breach of Regulation 12 had been resolved.

What inspectors praised
  • Improved management

    Inspectors found stronger leadership, better staff morale and more effective quality checks than at the previous inspection.

    “Leadership and management had improved with the recent appointment of a new manager, which resulted in better outcomes for people and an increase in staff morale.” from the report
  • Safe staffing and medicines

    There were enough staff, risks were understood and medicines were ordered, stored and given safely.

    “Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
  • Better care records

    Care plans had improved and gave staff more detailed information about people's needs, choices and preferences.

    “Care plans had improved since the last inspection providing detailed information about people's needs and preferences and the support they required from staff.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Too few activities

    needs fixing

    People said activities had reduced after the activity organiser left. Inspectors found that, for much of the time, people had little to do apart from watching television.

    “However, for the majority of the time people had little to occupy or interest them apart from the television, which some people could not see or hear due to the layout of the room.” from the report
  • End of life plans varied

    needs fixing

    Some end of life care plans did not record enough detail about people's preferences or wishes.

    “However, some of these varied in the amount of detail recorded about the person's preferences or wishes in relation to end of life care.” from the report
  • Some checks needed clearer follow-up

    minor

    The audits identified issues, but some records did not make clear whether the required actions had been completed.

    “However, in some audits it was not always clear whether actions had been completed.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What activities are now available each day, including in the morning?
  2. 02How will you make sure people who cannot see or hear the television have suitable activities and social contact?
  3. 03How do you record and review each person's end of life wishes and preferences?
  4. 04How do your audits show that identified actions have been completed?
  5. 05What improvements have been made since the inspection to activities and end of life care planning?

This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Trinity Fold

4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Trinity Fold →

  2. February 2020Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Trinity Fold →

  3. January 2019Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. June 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. September 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. November 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. November 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Calderdale

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. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.

“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
Marion L., about Primrose N.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
Claire A., about Carla M.
See live-in carers near CalderdaleProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.