CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 111 Rosebank Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing and recruitment checks were suitable, medicines were managed safely, and infection control arrangements were effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and communication needs were assessed and supported. Staff had relevant training and worked with health professionals, although some relatives reported earlier problems with communication with other agencies.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and compassionate and respected people's privacy, dignity, equality and independence. People were supported to express their views and make choices using their preferred communication methods.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- The home did not always involve relatives enough to ensure care was personalised to people's diverse needs. Inspectors found examples where hair care and the use of personal toiletries did not fully meet an individual's needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear leadership, effective quality checks and an open culture where staff could raise concerns. Relatives and professionals reported that improvements had been made.
What inspectors found, September 2022
111 Rosebank Avenue was rated Good overall, but inspectors found care was not always personalised and rated Responsive Requires Improvement.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. One inspector visited on 27 May 2022, spoke with staff and relatives, observed care, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, training records, risk assessments and other documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People were kept safe, received their medicines properly, had their health needs supported, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood people's communication needs and supported their choices and independence.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement because the home had not always involved families enough to make sure care met people's individual and diverse needs. Inspectors found examples involving hair care and personal toiletries. They recommended improving arrangements for involving families.
Safety and risk management
Risks to people were identified, assessed and reviewed. The home had enough staff, used safe recruitment checks and managed medicines and infection control safely.
“People lived safely because the service assessed, monitored and managed their safety well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and respected their privacy, dignity, cultural needs and independence. People were supported to take part in decisions and daily activities.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans explained how each person communicated and included tools such as pictures, objects of reference and gestures.
“There were a range of communication formats, each personalised to the specific needs of the person.” from the report
Management and improvement
The home had a clear management structure and quality checks. Staff felt able to speak up, and inspectors found evidence of improvements.
“Governance processes were effective and helped to assess, monitor and check the quality of the service provided to people.” from the report
Family involvement
needs fixingThe home had not always involved relatives sufficiently when planning personalised care. Inspectors recommended improving the arrangements for working with families.
“We found the service had not engaged with people's relatives sufficiently to ensure they met people's diverse needs.” from the report
Personal care details
needs fixingInspectors found examples where personal care did not fully meet an individual's needs, including how hair was trimmed and how toiletries were used.
“In another example, personal care toiletries had not been used in a way that met the person's needs.” from the report
- 01How will you involve our family member and us when agreeing their personal care preferences?
- 02What changes have you made since the inspection about hair care and the use of personal toiletries?
- 03How will you check that care remains personalised when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 04How do you share information with health and social care agencies, following the communication problems mentioned in the report?
- 05How will you show families that their feedback has led to improvements?
This was a planned first inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; inspectors could not speak directly with people because of their needs, so they observed care and contacted relatives. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 2022 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 111 Rosebank Avenue
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 2020.
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 Brent
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 £1,260 a week. 74 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.