CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 2a St Alban's Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Overall rating remains Requires Improvement; this targeted inspection found better records and mostly sound infection controls, but did not give new ratings.
The inspection took place on 12, 13 and 17 August 2020. One inspector looked around the home, observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and reviewed care records, infection control records and COVID-19 arrangements. Feedback from relatives and health professionals was positive.
The home had improved its care planning. Most records were clear, person-centred and up to date, and staff understood people's needs. However, some documents still needed updating, and there were gaps in weight records and evidence of monthly reviews for one person.
Inspectors were assured about many infection control arrangements, including visitors, social distancing, personal protective equipment and managing outbreaks. They were only somewhat assured about testing, cleaning evidence, some risk assessments and whether the infection control policy was fully up to date.
This was a targeted inspection, so it did not reassess the whole service. No new ratings were given. The overall rating remained Requires Improvement from the previous inspection, although the home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
Improved care records
Most care records were clear, person-centred and up to date. Staff understood the people they supported and inspectors had assurance that care plans were followed.
“Most care records were up-to-date and provided clear and person-centred information on people's care needs.” from the report
Positive feedback
Relatives and health professionals said the care met individual needs, communication was good and they were involved in planning.
“They said they were fully involved in care and support planning and said communication with the home was good.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing visitors from spreading infections, following shielding and social distancing rules, using PPE safely and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Previous breach addressed
The home had acted on the earlier Regulation 17 breach about care records and was no longer in breach at this inspection.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Some care records still incomplete
needs fixingA minority of documents were still being updated. There were gaps in weight records for one person and no evidence that another person had consistently received planned monthly reviews.
“We identified gaps in weight records relating to one person.” from the report
Testing and policy updates
needs fixingRegular testing was not yet fully available, and inspectors were only somewhat assured that the infection prevention policy and practice were up to date.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was accessing testing for people using the service and staff, regular testing had not yet been made fully available to the service.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every care record is complete, current and consistently updated?
- 02How are people's weights and planned monthly reviews recorded and monitored?
- 03What changes have you made to COVID-19 risk assessments for each person?
- 04How do your cleaning schedules show that enhanced cleaning has taken place, and which products should staff use?
- 05Is regular COVID-19 testing now fully available for people living here and staff?
This was a targeted inspection of the previous Regulation 17 concern and infection control arrangements; it did not assess the whole service, so the overall Requires Improvement rating remained from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 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.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but records were not kept up to date and responsive and well-led ratings fell short.
This was a planned inspection on 23 April 2019, with family members contacted on 25 April. One inspector reviewed information before the visit, spoke with the manager and care staff, observed care, and checked care and staff records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable support with health and diet, and respectful care that promoted choice and independence.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for responsive and well-led. Some care, risk and assessment records were not up to date or regularly reviewed. This was a breach of Regulation 17 on good governance. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in November 2016.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored and given safely, with trained staff and monthly audits.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Families said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity and involved in decisions about their care.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Choice and independence
The home recorded people's preferences and supported them to communicate, make choices and take part in everyday tasks and activities.
“People were supported to remain as independent as possible.” from the report
Support with health needs
People received support with diet, healthcare appointments and hospital information. Guidance from health professionals was available for staff to use.
“People were supported with their healthcare needs and to attend appointments when necessary.” from the report
Care records were out of date
seriousSome care records, risk management plans and assessments were not regularly reviewed. The provider had already identified this in an audit, but the work had not been completed by the agreed deadline.
“Care records were not always up to date or regularly reviewed.” from the report
Audits did not lead to timely action
needs fixingThe home carried out regular quality checks, but documentation problems identified by those checks were not dealt with within the set timescales. This weakened the oversight of care.
“issues with regard to documentation had not been actioned within the set timescales.” from the report
- 01Have all support plans, risk management plans and assessments now been reviewed and updated?
- 02How do you make sure care records stay accurate and are reviewed on time?
- 03What action was taken in response to the provider's February 2019 audit, and has the CQC-required action been completed?
- 04How are people's communication needs, choices and activities kept up to date in their records?
- 05How will you tell families if a person's risks or support needs change?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the inspection visit took place on 23 April 2019 and family members were contacted on 25 April 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 May 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 2a St Alban's Close
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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 Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 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.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.