Archived: Airedale Care Home

Airedale Residential Home provides accommodation for a maximum of 40 people, on three floors. It is situated in the Pudsey area of Leeds and is close to local shops and amenities. There is ample parking at the front of the property. There are pleasant views across a small public park. At the time of inspection there were 35 people living at Airedale Residential Home.

The home did not have a registered manager in place. The previous registered manager had just retired from the service seven days prior to the inspection The home had a newly recruited manager. The new manager had begun to take steps to complete the process of becoming registered. 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.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home. We saw risks to people were managed appropriately whilst ensuring people were safe and given their freedom. We spoke with three staff who told us they understood how to recognise and report any abuse. Training records showed staff were trained in safeguarding.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and staff training provided staff with the knowledge and skills to support people safely. Staff told us staffing levels had improved over the last month, and the home had recruited new staff.

There were one person at the home who was subject to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained and had a basic understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and DoLS. We spoke with staff about mental capacity and staff were able to describe what this meant in terms of people’s care.

We saw medicines were managed safely at the home.

We saw staff had developed good relationships with people and were kind and caring in their approach. People were given choices in their daily routines and their privacy and dignity was respected.

People’s nutritional needs were met and they received additional health care support when required.

We saw very little positive interaction around meal times. The meal time experience was more task orientated. The staff told us that this was an exception due to dining room furniture been delivered that day and people had to have completed their lunch before this arrived.

From our observations it was clear staff knew people well. Staff told us they were supported and supervised in their roles.

We saw there was evidence in place to show the home had made improvements to the care plans since the last inspection. The care plans were focused around the individual person and were person centred. Some people’s care plans had been reviewed and involved family members. The manager told us care plans were to be reviewed for everyone over the next couple of months.

Records we looked at showed there were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and the focus was on continuous improvement. There was good leadership at the service by the manager which promoted an open culture.

The home had completed some refurbishment around the home including, new windows, dining room furniture, re-decoration of some bedrooms, new carpets and was in the process of a new patio area. The area manager told us there were on going refurbishment throughout the home.

We saw there was a complaints procedure in place which was displayed in the home. People we spoke with told us they knew how to complain. The home had received complaints and these were dealt with promptly.

People said that the home was very good and that staff were, 'very helpful and kind.'

We saw that medicines were managed safely.

We reviewed records of the numbers of staff on duty across 24 hour periods. We found that staff concerns that there were sometimes not enough staff during the busy morning periods had been accepted by the manager and that there were already plans in place to address this.

We saw that provider regularly monitored the quality of service provision and assessed safety risks.

We spoke with six people who were living at the home. They told us that they felt that they were well cared for. One said 'They are very good to me here.' Another told us 'The staff are lovely, they look after you very well.' We also spoke with a family member who said 'The staff are brilliant.'

We found that the home had procedures on obtaining consent. We asked people to tell us whether they were asked about receiving care and support. One person told us "They do not do anything I do not want them to." People had personalised care plans which were regularly reviewed by the staff. We attended the daily staff meeting and listened to the staff discussing people's current care needs. The staff knew the people living at the home well and showed concern for their well-being.

The home had leaflets on display explaining how to make a compliant. We looked at the home's records and saw that there had been no complaints made. When we spoke with people they told us that they did not have any concerns or complaints about the home but would know what to do if they did.