Ardsley House
Wakefield, WF3
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home
CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Priory Group
Woodhouse Hall
14 Woodhouse Lane, East Ardsley, Wakefield, WF3 2JS
Goodpublished 24 January 2024, 2 years ago
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
The five questions inspectors ask
- Safe?
- Good
- Staffing, recruitment, safeguarding and infection control were managed safely. Inspectors found some maintenance, risk assessment and medicine recording issues, which the manager said would be addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Caring. Inspectors did report that people were treated with dignity and respect.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Responsive. Inspectors found personalised care, activities and support for people's goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as approachable, supportive and responsive. However, some quality audits had not identified problems quickly enough, so the provider was asked to review its quality assurance processes.
The latest report, explained
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found respectful, safe care, but some medicine records, maintenance checks and quality audits needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced. One inspector and an Expert by Experience visited on 13 December 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, advocates, staff and healthcare professionals, observed care and checked care plans, risk records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good and well-led was rated Good. People were treated with dignity, supported to make choices and helped to take part in activities and learn new skills.
Inspectors found some safety and maintenance issues, including a missing window restrictor and gaps in some medicine guidance and records. The manager acted on these during the inspection. The home was asked to improve its quality checks because audits had not found all the problems.
What inspectors praised
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take positive risks and live as independently as possible. Inspectors found that restrictions were not used unnecessarily.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible” from the report
Medicine management
Inspectors found no medicine errors and saw regular medicine reviews. Staff competency was checked regularly.
“Overall, people's medication was well managed and we did not found any medication errors.” from the report
Responsive management
The manager acted promptly when inspectors raised issues and there were plans to develop care planning and opportunities for people.
“The manager was proactive during the inspection and responsive in acting on the issues identified.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
Premises safety
seriousInspectors found some maintenance issues, including a window restrictor that was not in place. These issues were addressed on the day of the inspection.
“Some areas of the home required maintenance and we found one window restrictor was not in place.” from the report
Medicine records and guidance
needs fixingSome guidance for medicines taken when needed was not printed or easy for staff to access. Checks on one person's self-administered medicine had also not been recorded.
“we also found examples were this had not been printed out and was not easily accessible to staff” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingAudits had not always identified or dealt with issues promptly. For example, regular checks had not found the missing window restrictor or gaps in medicine guidance.
“We recommend the provider reviews their quality assurance processes to ensure these are effective in identifying and addressing areas for improvement.” from the report
Risk assessments
needs fixingA few risk assessments needed review, although staff could explain the measures being used. The manager said the new electronic system would be used to keep records aligned with the care provided.
“However, we found a few examples were some risk assessments required review” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure window restrictors and other maintenance checks are safe and effective?
- 02How do you make sure 'as and when' medicine guidance is printed, available to staff and kept up to date?
- 03How are checks on medicines managed by people themselves recorded?
- 04How have the new electronic care plans and risk assessments been reviewed to make sure they match people's current needs?
- 05What changes have you made to quality audits since inspectors found they had not identified some problems?
This inspection focused on applying the Right support, right care, right culture principles and gave ratings for Safe and Well-led only; separate ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not given. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 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 Woodhouse Hall
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 2010.
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.
Same provider
Other services run by J C Care Limited
7 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.
Good
Carlton House
Leeds, LS26
Residential
Rated 2 months agocare home
Daisy Vale House
Wakefield, WF3
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home
Dolphin Lane
Wakefield, WF3
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home
Gateholme
Wakefield, WF2
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home
The Whitby Scheme
Whitby, YO21
Residential
Rated 8 years agocare home
Nearby
Other care homes near Wakefield
Woodhouse Cottage
Wakefield, WF3 · 0.0 km
Residential
Rated 4 years agocare home
Ardsley House
Wakefield, WF3 · 0.7 km
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home
Gateholme
Wakefield, WF2 · 1.5 km
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home
Carr Gate
Wakefield, WF2 · 1.6 km
NursingDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home
Daisy Vale House
Wakefield, WF3 · 1.7 km
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home
Dolphin Lane
Wakefield, WF3 · 1.9 km
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home