CREATIVE CARE HOME LIMITED
- Home care
- Dementia care
- Registered since 2023
- Calderdale, Yorkshire and the Humber
Requires improvement
Rated on
Rating from the Care Quality Commission.
At a glance
1 rating
Only one rating on record, so there is no trend to show yet.
13 months
since the latest rating was published.
4 of 36
rated home care services in Calderdale are rated Requires improvement, like this one.
CREATIVE CARE HOME LIMITED: inspection record
Rated Requires improvement in September 2025.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ||||||||||||
| Safe | ||||||||||||
| Effective | ||||||||||||
| Caring | ||||||||||||
| Responsive | ||||||||||||
| Well-led |
Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Home Instead (Calderdale & Spen Valley) (Good, 1 mile away) and Willow Court (Good, 1.1 miles away).
Nearest home care services:
- G Home Instead (Calderdale & Spen Valley) Good, 1 mile away
- G Willow Court Good, 1.1 miles away
- G Caremark Calderdale Good, 1.1 miles away
- G Bramhams Homecare Ltd Good, 1.1 miles away
- G Passion for Support Limited Good, 1.2 miles away
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 8 September 2025 (assessment visit 24 May 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
Date of assessment – 13 May to 05 June 2025. This was a remote assessment of the service and was the first assessment the service since it registered with CQC.
- Safe No rating
- Effective No rating
- Caring Good
- Responsive Good
- Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary
CREATIVE CARE HOME LIMITED is a domiciliary care service registered to provide personal care to adults in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 2 people received support with personal care. During the assessment, 3 regulatory breaches in respect of safe care and treatment including medicines, staffing and governance were identified.
The assessment and planning of people’s care did not always adhere to best practice guidance. Some people had individual risks associated with falls, skin integrity, nutrition, mobility and moving and handling. No adequate assessment of these risks had been completed which meant staff lacked accurate and sufficient information on how to mitigate these risks and provide safe care. Guidance in place for the use of moving and handling equipment had not always been followed which placed people at risk of avoidable harm. Risks in the person’s home environment had also not been assessed.
Medicines were not managed safely. Best practice guidance issued by The Royal Pharmaceutical Society, CQC and the National Institute of Heath and Care Excellence (NICE), was not followed. Records were poorly maintained and showed gaps in the administration of some medicines. Staff had not always completed training in medicines administration prior to taking on this responsibility and competency checks on staff practice were not robust. There were no systems in place to check medicines were given correctly.
Staff were recruited safely to ensure they were safe to work with vulnerable people. Staff had prior experience of working in a care setting however staff including the registered manager had not fully completed the provider’s mandatory training programme before providing one to one care to people. This meant the provider could not be assured their skills and competencies were up to date and sufficient to provide safe and effective care.
Governance required improvement. There was a lack of appropriate checks on the quality and safety of the service and policies in relation to the delivery of the service were not always followed. This meant shortfalls in the assessment, planning, delivery of people’s care, medicines management, staff training and leadership had not been picked up and addressed to ensure regulatory responsibilities were fully met. We discussed these concerns with the provider and registered manager. They were receptive to our feedback and committed to making improvements to the service.
The culture of the service was open, transparent and it was clear the provider, registered manager and staff genuinely cared for the people they supported. People experienced person centred care which placed their needs, wishes and preferences at the forefront of their support. People and relatives were involved in planning and deciding upon how they wanted their support to be provided, and these choices were respected. This showed people were listened to, involved with and in control of their own care. Formal reviews of people’s care however did not always take place which meant care information was not always fully up to date.
No safeguarding events, accident or incidents had occurred at the service. Referrals to other health and social care professionals to support people’s needs were made appropriately when required. People’s care was well co-ordinated, joined up and people’s home visits were regular, consistent and provided by familiar staff who knew people well. This was good practice and promoted positive outcomes in people’s health and wellbeing. People were supported with nutrition and hydration in support of healthier lives.
-
Safe
No rating
Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.
This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there were limited assurances about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. There was breach of the regulation safe care and treatment which included medicines.
-
Effective
No rating
Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.
This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent. There was breach of the regulation safe care and treatment.
-
Caring
Good
Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
-
Responsive
Good
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
-
Well-led
No rating
Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.
This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high quality person centred care. There was a breach of the regulation good governance.
Questions to ask the service
- Safe was rated Requires improvement on 8 September 2025. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
- Effective was rated Requires improvement on 8 September 2025. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
- Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 8 September 2025. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
Registration details
- Registered manager
- Khabonina Leeming
- Registered with the CQC since
- What it provides
- Domiciliary care service
- Who it supports
- Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability, Younger Adults
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.
Who runs it
- Provider
- Creative Care Home Limited
- Ownership type
- Organisation
- Companies House number
- 11751479 (opens Companies House)
Getting help from Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 01422 393000, Monday to Thursday 8.45am to 5pm, Friday 8.45am to 4.30pm
- Contact adult social care online
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does CREATIVE CARE HOME LIMITED provide nursing care?
- The Care Quality Commission's register does not list nursing care for CREATIVE CARE HOME LIMITED.
- When was CREATIVE CARE HOME LIMITED last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for CREATIVE CARE HOME LIMITED was published on 8 September 2025.
- Who runs CREATIVE CARE HOME LIMITED?
- CREATIVE CARE HOME LIMITED is run by Creative Care Home Limited.
- What is CREATIVE CARE HOME LIMITED's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 8 September 2025.
Contact
- Phone
- 07788 936986
- Address
- 6 Chevinedge Crescent, Halifax, HX3 9EQ Map (opens Google Maps)
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Home Instead (Calderdale & Spen Valley) (Good, 1 mile away) and Willow Court (Good, 1.1 miles away).
Nearest home care services:
- G Home Instead (Calderdale & Spen Valley) Good, 1 mile away
- G Willow Court Good, 1.1 miles away
- G Caremark Calderdale Good, 1.1 miles away
- G Bramhams Homecare Ltd Good, 1.1 miles away
- G Passion for Support Limited Good, 1.2 miles away