Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Lovett Care

Adel Manor Care Home

Adel Manor Gardens, Adel, Leeds, LS16 7FP

Goodpublished 2 March 2024, 2 years ago

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

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors found that risks were assessed, safeguarding systems were understood, medicines were managed safely, and infection control arrangements were in place. Staffing was enough to meet needs safely during the inspection, but deployment and call bell response needed attention.
Effective?
Requires improvement
People's care and support did not always achieve consistent good outcomes. Call bells sometimes took longer than five minutes, people had mixed involvement in care planning, and some reported concerns about food temperature, portion sizes and suitable cultural choices.
Caring?
Good
Inspectors saw kind and caring interactions and found that privacy, dignity, independence and choice were generally promoted. However, some people said staff rushed care or seemed indifferent, and cultural needs were not always met.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and communication needs. Activities and relationships were supported, although some people said activities were not suitable for everyone or did not include people in their rooms.
Well-led?
Good
The management team used audits, meetings and an electronic care system to monitor quality and learn from incidents. There was no registered manager in post at the inspection, but a new manager had applied for registration and CQC was assessing the application.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2024

Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe and caring support, but effectiveness requires improvement.

This was the home's first inspection. It was unannounced and took place over three visits. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.

The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, healthcare was available, and staff generally treated people with kindness and respect.

Effectiveness was rated Requires Improvement. People had mixed experiences of call bell response times, food quality and cultural food choices. Some people also said staff could seem rushed or indifferent. Inspectors made three recommendations about staff interactions, call bell response and staff deployment, and the dining experience.

This was the first inspection since the service was registered. A new manager had been in post for seven months and was applying to become registered with CQC.

What inspectors praised

  • Risk and safeguarding

    People's risks were assessed and staff understood how to manage them. Inspectors found safeguarding concerns had been identified and acted on appropriately.

    “People's risks had been identified and assessed. We found staff understood the actions they needed to take to manage people's individual risks to maintain people's safety.” from the report

  • Safe medicines

    Medicines were given safely and staff used personalised approaches for medicines with special instructions. There was no evidence of over-medication for anxiety.

    “Information to support staff to safely give 'when required' medicines were in place and was person centred.” from the report

  • Choice and independence

    Staff encouraged people to make choices and supported independence. Inspectors saw staff helping people with mobility while keeping their aids accessible.

    “People were encouraged to make choices for themselves.” from the report

  • Healthcare support

    People were supported to see healthcare professionals when needed. The home worked with GPs and community nursing teams.

    “People were supported to access healthcare professionals when needed.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Call bell delays and staff deployment

    needs fixing

    Some people said call bells were not answered quickly, with one person reporting waits of 30 to 35 minutes. Inspectors recommended reviewing staff deployment and call bell times.

    “It can vary how long it takes to respond, when I press the call bell. It can take 30-35 minutes sometimes to be attended” from the report

  • Food experience

    needs fixing

    Some people said food was cold and portions were small. Cultural options and some dietary requirements were not always provided, so inspectors recommended improvements.

    “The food is not very good. It is often cold and not very much of it either.” from the report

  • Staff interactions

    needs fixing

    Although inspectors saw kindness, some people felt rushed and said some staff could be indifferent. The home was asked to look at how care and support were provided.

    “They always appear to be in a rush to get out of the room.” from the report

  • Registered manager

    needs fixing

    There was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. The new manager had applied to register, and CQC was assessing the application.

    “At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How long do call bells usually take to be answered now, and how do you check this?
  2. 02How do you deploy staff when people are admitted or discharged at short notice?
  3. 03What changes have been made to food temperature, portion sizes and cultural meal choices?
  4. 04How do you make sure staff provide care without rushing people?
  5. 05What is the current position on the manager's CQC registration application?

This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, with additional checks on medicines and infection prevention; the report says the service supported 30 discharge-to-assess or transitional beds. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 2024 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 Adel Manor Care Home

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the service was registered.

  1. March 2024Goodcurrent rating
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Adel Manor Care Home →

  2. April 2022

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 April 2022.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Nearby

Other care homes near Leeds

All in Leeds

Raynel Drive

Leeds, LS16 · 1.5 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home

Adel Square

Leeds, LS16 · 1.6 km
Not yet rated
ResidentialDementia
Not yet ratedcare home

Cookridge Court

Leeds, LS16 · 2.1 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 9 months agocare home

Cookridge Court

Leeds, LS16 · 2.1 km
Not yet rated
ResidentialDementia
Not yet ratedcare home

Cranmer Court

Leeds, LS17 · 2.9 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home