CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 102 Faircross Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, risk assessments, staffing, infection control and safety checks were generally managed well, although the home was asked to review arrangements for people going out.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in, and staff had suitable training and supervision. Inspectors noticed that mental health awareness training was overdue, and the manager arranged a course.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and routines, and supported privacy, dignity, independence and choice.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and covered communication, health, relationships, interests and daily living needs. People were supported with activities, family relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider had systems to monitor care, medicines, safety and records. Inspectors found an open and supportive culture, with feedback from people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals used to improve the home.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with a recommendation to improve flexibility for people going out.
One inspector made an unannounced visit on 8 January 2024. They spoke with all three people living in the home, one relative, the manager and a staff member. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, training, recruitment, incidents and infection control records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, staff were kind, and care was tailored to people's needs and choices.
There was one recommendation about staffing arrangements. People needed staff support to go out, but there were only some times when two staff were available together. The home was also asked to improve how incident records captured lessons learned. The previous overall rating was Good in 2018, and this rating remained Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors observed polite and respectful interactions, with support given at people's own pace.
“People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. People's dignity, privacy and human rights were respected.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines records were accurate and up to date. Staff understood people's risks, and the home carried out safety checks and maintained emergency plans.
“We checked medicine administration records (MAR) and saw they were accurate and up to date.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's health needs, communication, preferences, relationships, hobbies and daily living skills. Staff reviewed plans when needs or preferences changed.
“Care plans contained details of people's daily living skills, communication needs, mental health, personal relationships, hobbies and interests, mobility, dietary and personal care needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to maintain family and friendship links and to enjoy activities such as walks, music, shopping, eating out and exercise.
“People were supported to pursue their own interests. Each person had a weekly activity schedule for which they were supported by staff.” from the report
Limited flexibility to go out
needs fixingPeople needed staff support when going out, but two staff were available together only at some times during the week. At other times, the home relied on the manager to provide cover.
“This meant during other times, a staff member was reliant on the registered manager to provide cover if people wanted to go out.” from the report
Incident records did not always show lessons learned
minorManagers reviewed incidents and took action, but the incident form did not always record what had been learned or how a repeat could be prevented. The manager said the form would be changed.
“We saw from meeting minutes that lessons were learned from incidents although incident forms did not always capture this information due to their format.” from the report
Mental health training was overdue
needs fixingInspectors found that staff had not received mental health awareness training for a long period. The manager immediately arranged suitable training for all staff to attend later.
“We noticed it had been a long period of time since staff had received training in mental health awareness.” from the report
- 01How many staff are available when a person wants to go out at different times of the day and week?
- 02What changes have been made after the recommendation about giving people more flexibility and choice to go out?
- 03Has all staff mental health awareness training now taken place, and when will it be refreshed?
- 04Have the incident forms been changed to record lessons learned and how similar incidents can be prevented?
- 05How are each person's activity schedule, relationships and communication needs kept up to date?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five rating areas, including the premises, care provided and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 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.
Every inspection of 102 Faircross Avenue
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 September 2022.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Barking and Dagenham
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is a safe pair of hands and her years of experience certainly shine through.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.