You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Headingley Hall Care Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 29 June 2017

We carried out the inspection of Headingley Hall Care Home on 08 and 12 May 2017. At the time of our inspection there were 44 people using the service. This was an unannounced inspection.

Headingley Hall Care Home provides residential care for a maximum of 57 people and is situated in the centre of Headingley. The home is a two storey adapted building and close to local amenities. There is car parking to the front of the building and good wheelchair access. The home has gardens and a patio area for people to use.

The home had a registered manager but they were on annual leave at the time of inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on 22 February 2016 the service was rated ‘requires improvement’ in two of our key questions. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

There were enough staff on duty to provide people with the support they needed and pre-employment checks had been carried out before new staff were appointed. Following initial employment the provider had not always security checked staffs criminal records. The provider took immediate action to start resolving this concern.

Staff were trained and supported to understand people's needs and provide their care in the right way. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and confirmed they had received formal supervision from their line manager and regular staff meetings were arranged.

People told us they felt safe living in the service. Staff showed they had a good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were clear about the actions they would take to protect people. We found staff ensured they gained consent from people prior to completing care tasks. They worked within mental capacity legislation when people were assessed as not having capacity to make their own decisions.

People's medicines were stored safely and recorded appropriately. People received their medicines in line with their prescription. People received a well-balanced diet that offered variety and choice. People liked the meals provided to them and their nutritional needs were met. Staff worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure people received effective care.

People were treated with respect, kindness and understanding. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the people they cared for, their preferences and abilities. People told us staff were friendly, caring and had time to sit and talk to them. We observed staff had developed good relationships with people who used the service and their relatives. People's privacy and dignity was respected by staff who encouraged people to be independent and make choices and decisions in their daily lives.

Care plans recorded people's needs and preferences and staff followed this information when providing support. People who became anxious were provided with individual reassurance and support.

We saw people were encouraged to engage in a range of meaningful activities and to maintain their independence where possible. Relatives told us they could visit at any time and staff welcomed them.

The service was run in an open and inclusive manner. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the services people received. People who used and visited the service were supported to share their opinion of the service provided. Two complaints had been made to the registered manager or registered provider and we saw these had been investigated and information fed back. People we spoke with knew how to raise concerns and told us they would be confident to do so.

Inspection areas



Updated 29 June 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were recruited safely and were employed in sufficient numbers in order to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Staff knew what action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

Risks to people had been identified and assessed and there was guidance for staff on how to keep people safe.

The management of medicines was safe.



Updated 29 June 2017

The service was effective.

People were able to make choices about aspects of their lives. When they were assessed as lacking capacity for this, the registered provider acted within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff received appropriate induction, training, support and supervision to enable them to feel confident in meeting people's needs.

People's health and nutritional needs were met.

People were supported to access community health care professionals and attend appointments when required.



Updated 29 June 2017

The service was caring.

People's dignity and privacy was respected and people were supported to maintain their independence.

We observed the staff approach was friendly, kind and caring.

Staff encouraged people who used the service to make their own choices and decisions about their care.



Updated 29 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People's needs were assessed and care plans produced. People and their relatives were involved in this process which helped staff to deliver support tailored to their needs and preferences.

There was a range of activities within the service for people to participate in. Staff also supported people to access community facilities and to maintain contact with friends and relatives.

There was a complaints process in place and people who used the service told us they felt able to raise concerns and that these would be addressed.



Updated 29 June 2017

The service was well-led.

There were systems and processes in place that helped to ensure the quality of care and improved the service.

There was an open and inclusive culture within the service.

Meetings were held to enable people who used the service, their relatives and staff to express their views about the service.