CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Anchor
Savile Park
1 Mellor Street, Halifax, HX1 3AE
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding and risks such as falls and choking. Inspectors found some conflicting information in individual risk assessments and improvements were needed in medicines storage, guidance and recording.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was adapted when needs changed. Staff had appropriate training and support, people enjoyed a varied choice of food, and the home worked well with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, patience, dignity and respect. People were offered choices, involved in care discussions and encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and communication needs. There were activities, support for relationships and interests, unrestricted visiting, and a complaints process that responded promptly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff felt the home was well run and approachable. Quality systems were in place, but some daily records, food and fluid charts, bowel charts and care records were not always complete or updated promptly.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some records, medicines and cleaning systems needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 October 2023. Three inspectors observed care, spoke with 9 people, 11 staff and 4 visitors, and checked records. They also considered information from the provider and local authority partners.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, well cared for and involved in decisions. Inspectors found good teamwork, suitable staff support, varied food and activities, and effective work with health professionals.
There were some shortfalls, but the provider acted on several of them during the inspection. These included conflicting risk information, incomplete or late records, unclear guidance for some medicines, and areas needing a deeper clean. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in 2018.
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood what mattered to each person and supported dignity, choice and independence. People and relatives described staff as kind and patient.
“People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted.” from the report
Safe staffing and teamwork
Inspectors found enough suitable staff, quick responses to requests and good teamwork. Recruitment checks were completed before staff worked with people.
“Staff were quick to respond when people needed support and they worked well as a team to ensure care needs were met in a timely way.” from the report
Food and health support
There was a good choice of meals, snacks and drinks, with support tailored to people's dietary needs. Staff worked proactively with health professionals.
“There was a variety of choices for people's meals, snacks and drinks.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in varied activities, go on trips and receive visitors freely. Staff also encouraged people to spend time in communal areas.
“There was a varied programme of planned activities, such as singers, quizzes and a gardening club.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff said managers were visible and approachable. The home used feedback and a 'you said, we did' board to involve people in changes.
“There was a positive and open culture at the service.” from the report
Risk and care records
needs fixingSome risk assessments contained conflicting information. Inspectors also found minor recording problems, including charts not always being updated promptly and contradictions in a minority of care records.
“Some information in individual risk assessments was conflicting.” from the report
Medicines systems
needs fixingMedicines were generally managed safely, but storage was not secure enough on the inspection day and some 'when required' medicines lacked clear instructions. The provider took action during the inspection.
“Some medicines for people to have when required did not have any clear guidance for staff to know when to give these.” from the report
Cleaning and wear
minorThe home was mostly clean, but some armchairs and carpets needed a more thorough clean. Some parts of the building also showed wear and tear.
“We noticed some areas were in need of a more thorough clean, such as armchairs and carpets.” from the report
Time spent sitting
needs fixingSome people who relied on staff to help them move were seen sitting in chairs for long periods. Managers said they would review this.
“We noticed some people who relied on staff to help them move sat in chairs for long periods of time.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent conflicting information in risk assessments and care records?
- 02How are medicines now checked from delivery through to storage, administration and recording?
- 03Have the armchairs and carpets had the deeper clean identified by inspectors, and how is cleaning checked now?
- 04How do you make sure people who need help to move do not spend long periods sitting in chairs?
- 05How has the new electronic recording system improved the timeliness and accuracy of daily records?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care provided and the premises, covering all five CQC questions; the previous inspection rating from 2018 remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 2023 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 Savile Park
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
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.
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.
Other services run by Anchor Hanover Group
120 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.