CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 179 Green Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff knew people's needs, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. Some risk assessments were generic rather than individual, although these were amended during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with health, nutrition and daily living. Some mental health training was out of date, and checks of staff competency had not been recorded properly.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's choices, privacy, communication and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and up to date. People were supported to follow their interests, keep in touch with family and take part in activities they chose.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had supportive leadership and an open culture. However, governance checks had not found several recording, training and risk assessment problems before the inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2022
179 Green Lane is rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but the management checks needed improvement.
This was a planned inspection on 22 February 2022. One inspector spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and the manager. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, incidents and quality checks.
The home supported four people at the time, and could support up to five. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. People were supported with health appointments, food, activities, family contact and developing independence.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because quality checks had not identified some problems with risk assessments, mental capacity records, staff training and competency records. The provider had addressed the concerns by the end of the inspection.
Choice and control
People were supported to make choices about their care and daily lives. Staff used the least restrictive options when managing risks.
“There was an open culture which supported people to set goals and achieve the outcomes they wanted.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people at ease with staff. Staff respected privacy, dignity, personal choices and different preferences.
“People received kind, respectful and compassionate care from staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's communication, preferences, life history and desired outcomes. Staff knew the people they supported well.
“Care plans were up-to-date and person- centred which informed staff on how people wanted to be cared for.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to go out, keep relationships, learn skills and take part in activities that interested them.
“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure activities on a regular basis.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines records were completed correctly and stock matched the records. Staff knew what to do if someone refused medicine.
“The medicines administration record (MAR) sheets were appropriately completed and medicines stocks tallied with the MAR sheets.” from the report
Risk assessments were not always individual
needs fixingSome risk assessments used the same generic guidance for different people. The manager amended these during the inspection.
“Although the care records showed that people's support needs were assessed and monitored, people's risk assessments were not always person-centred and individualised.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingThe provider's quality checks had not identified issues with risk assessments, mental capacity records, staff observations and training before the inspection.
“The governance systems in place were not always operated effectively because they had failed to pick up on the issues we identified during our inspection.” from the report
Some records and training needed updating
minorSome mental capacity records needed more information. Mental health awareness training was out of date, and staff competency observations had not been recorded.
“However, some records in relation to the MCA required updating.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every person's risk assessment is individual and up to date?
- 02Have all mental capacity assessments and best interests records been reviewed, and what information do they now include?
- 03Is all required staff refresher training complete, including mental health awareness training?
- 04How are staff competency observations recorded and checked by managers?
- 05What changes have you made so your quality checks identify problems before an inspection?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 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 179 Green Lane
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 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 Merton
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
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.