CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 215 Hughenden Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed through PPE, testing, social distancing, cleaning, screening and outbreak plans. However, cleaning records did not always show when sanitising had taken place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, January 2021
215 Hughenden Road was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, but cleaning records were not always complete.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 9 December 2020. It checked infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus pandemic. The home supports up to six people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders, and all six places were in use.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, people using the service and staff were protected through screening, social distancing, PPE, testing and outbreak plans. They saw clean communal areas, infection control training and checks on PPE use. Families had been supported with outdoor visits and risk-assessed visits to family homes where restrictions allowed.
The home was inspected but not rated. Inspectors found that cleaning records were inconsistent and did not always show when sanitising had happened. The home had already identified this and said it would carry out daily checks. Inspectors also signposted the provider to resources about hygiene practices.
Infection control measures
Staff used appropriate PPE, and the home monitored PPE supplies and staff practice. Inspectors were assured that PPE was being used safely.
“We observed staff wearing appropriate PPE, and found the home had a stock of face visors where additional eye protection was needed.” from the report
Support for visits
Visitors were screened, and the home had supported outdoor visits and some visits to family homes where restrictions allowed. A safer winter visiting space was being prepared.
“At the time of our visit, construction work on a summer house was nearing completion to provide a safe winter visiting space.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans for an outbreak, including isolation and steps to protect other people from infection. Its infection control policy was described as up to date.
“Systems were in place to respond to an outbreak of COVID-19 infection, to self-isolate individuals who had tested positive for COVID-19 and protect others from the risk of infection spread.” from the report
Accessible information
Staff used easy-read information and conversations to help people understand COVID-19 risks and how to stay safer.
“The service used easy read documents and supportive conversations to help people learn about COVID-19 and measures needed to keep themselves safe.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Have cleaning and sanitising records been made consistent, and do they now record the time each task was completed?
- 02Has the planned winter visiting space been completed, and how is it sanitised before and after visits?
- 03How are COVID-19 testing decisions recorded when a person cannot give informed consent?
- 04How often are PPE supplies and staff use of PPE checked now?
- 05What would happen if someone using the home tested positive for COVID-19?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection of all areas of care and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 2021 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.
What inspectors found, September 2018
215 Hughenden Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, and said earlier medicines and safeguarding breaches had been addressed.
Inspectors visited on 1 and 2 August 2018. The first day was unannounced. One inspector spoke with relatives, staff, managers and a social care professional, and reviewed six care plans, medicine records, staff files, audits and other records.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient, staff were trained, and people received care based on their individual needs.
At the previous inspection, the home had breached rules about medicines and responding to possible abuse. Inspectors found these problems had been improved and the home was meeting those requirements at this inspection.
Safer medicines
Medicine records were correctly completed, and audits were used to identify and address problems. This was an improvement from the previous inspection.
“Medicine records we saw were correctly signed by the member of staff who administered the medicine.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's individual needs and adapted support to their routines, communication and behaviour. People were supported to make choices and take planned risks.
“Staff spent quality time with people and enabled them to 'go at their own pace'.” from the report
Activities and independence
People took part in activities they enjoyed, including swimming, gym sessions, outings, day centres, holidays and community events.
“People were supported to have active lifestyles and had access to a range of activities both within the service and in the community.” from the report
Family involvement
Families could visit freely, give feedback and attend forums. People were also involved in choosing and meeting potential new staff.
“The service had an open-door policy. Families could visit whenever they liked.” from the report
Monitoring and leadership
The home used regular audits and feedback to check safety and quality. Staff said they felt supported and able to raise concerns.
“The service carried out a system of regular audits to drive continuous improvements and learn from current performance.” from the report
Communication training
minorOne staff member said they wanted Makaton training. The manager said this was being sourced, but the report does not confirm that it had been completed.
“One member of staff said they would like to attend Makaton training.” from the report
Limited direct views
minorInspectors met the people living in the home but could not speak with them because of communication difficulties. This means the report relied partly on observations, records and the views of others.
“We were unable to speak with them due to communication difficulties.” from the report
- 01What communication methods does the home currently use for people who cannot communicate easily, and has Makaton training been completed?
- 02How are medicine errors or near misses recorded, checked and followed up now?
- 03How will you make sure the person we are considering remains involved in decisions and can express their views?
- 04How many permanent, bank and agency staff currently support residents, and how are new staff introduced to each person's needs?
- 05How are families involved in reviews, complaints, activities and decisions about changes to support?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings, including the building, care, records, medicines, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 2018 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 215 Hughenden Road
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 August 2013.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.