CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 11 Angles Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, risk assessments and plans, safe medicines support and suitable infection prevention arrangements. People told inspectors they felt safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported to access healthcare and received support from trained staff. Their food, drink, living environment and consent to care were also appropriately supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people's needs and preferences, treated them with dignity and respected their cultural and religious needs. People were involved in everyday decisions and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences, and people took part in activities they chose. However, many structured activities had not restarted after COVID-19, and end-of-life planning processes needed attention.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found experienced leadership, regular checks and audits, staff meetings and links with healthcare professionals. People and staff were consulted about how the home was run.
What inspectors found, August 2022
229 Mitcham Lane Limited - 11 Angles Road is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but activities had not fully restarted and end-of-life planning needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 July 2022. One inspector spoke with two people living in the home, a support worker and the registered manager. They also received feedback from one healthcare professional and reviewed care records, staff files, training records and management records.
The home supports up to six men with mental health needs. Five people were living there at the inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, medicines given as prescribed, risk plans that staff followed and suitable infection control arrangements.
People were supported to make their own choices, stay independent and access healthcare. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their cultural and religious needs, and involved them in decisions about their care. All five areas inspected were rated Good.
The home had moved to electronic care planning and was still transferring paper records. Structured activities had not fully restarted after COVID-19. Inspectors also recommended improving how end-of-life care needs would be recorded if needed.
Safe care and medicines
People said they felt safe. Medicines records showed that prescribed medicines were given as intended, and staff had medicines training.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. People told us that they were given their medicines on time.” from the report
Respect and independence
Staff supported people to make everyday choices and take part in daily tasks. Their privacy, cultural needs and religious beliefs were respected.
“People led independent lives and staff encouraged to take part in daily living activities such as meal preparation, laundry and maintaining their personal living spaces.” from the report
Understanding people's needs
Staff knew people's preferences and mental health needs. People were supported to express their views and attend regular key worker and residents' meetings.
“Staff were familiar with people's needs and preferences and spoke about them in a way that showed they knew them well, including their preferences and also their mental health needs.” from the report
Healthcare support
The home worked with healthcare professionals and supported people to attend GP and other appointments when needed.
“Records showed that the provider liaised with healthcare professionals to support people.” from the report
Activities had not fully restarted
needs fixingMany structured activities had not restarted after COVID-19, and people were not attending regular day centres. The manager was looking at other activities, which inspectors said they would review at the next inspection.
“Staff told us that many of the structured activities had not recommenced after COVID-19 and people did not engage or attend any regular day centres.” from the report
End-of-life planning
minorNo one currently needed end-of-life care, but inspectors recommended improving the process so people's wishes and needs could be recorded effectively if this became necessary.
“We recommend the provider looks at its processes around end of life care needs so these can be captured effectively if needed.” from the report
Care record transfer
minorThe home was moving from paper care records to an electronic system. At the inspection, staff were still transferring the old records.
“The provider had recently transitioned to an electronic care planning system and was in the process of transferring the previous, paper-based care records into the new system.” from the report
- 01Have the structured activities that had not restarted after COVID-19 now resumed, and what activities are available?
- 02How will you support someone who later needs end-of-life care, and how will their wishes be recorded?
- 03Has the transfer from paper care records to the electronic system been completed, and how do you check that no important information was missed?
- 04How are medicines checked and reviewed for each person?
- 05How will you support my relative to maintain independence while managing risks such as self-neglect or financial exploitation?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control; the previous inspection in 2018 had also rated all areas Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 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.
What inspectors found, August 2018
229 Mitcham Lane Limited - 11 Angles Road was rated Good, with caring and safe support, but staff training records needed better monitoring.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 6 July 2018. They spoke with two people living in the home, the registered manager and a care worker. They also contacted two healthcare professionals and checked care records, staff files, complaints and management records.
The home supported up to six people with mental health needs, and five people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found people felt safe, were treated kindly and had choice over their daily lives. Staff supported medicines, appointments, activities and contact with health and social care professionals.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, and inspectors found no serious risks or concerns.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and inspectors found safeguarding arrangements, risk assessments and staffing were suitable. There had been no safeguarding concerns since the previous inspection.
“People using the service were safe and protected from avoidable harm and abuse.” from the report
Kind and familiar staff
Staff had worked at the home for several years. Inspectors found friendly relationships and a calm atmosphere, which helped staff understand people's needs and preferences.
“All the staff members had been employed for over five years, this had meant they were familiar with the needs and preferences of people and enabled them to develop lasting relationships with them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about their daily routines and to go out independently. Restrictions were kept to a minimum.
“People lived independent lives, eating out and going to local cafes and day centres.” from the report
Joined-up health support
The home worked with community mental health and other professionals. People were helped to attend medical appointments and receive referrals when needed.
“Staff work collaboratively with community services to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans included people's needs, goals and the actions staff should take. Plans were reviewed every three months, with monthly opportunities for people to discuss their support.
“Each person had a care and support plan which identified their support need, their goals and how staff could help them to achieve their goals.” from the report
Training records were not formally monitored
needs fixingThere was no formal system to check when staff completed training. Inspectors specifically noted that one staff member's medicines training was from 2015 and recommended that the provider introduce a monitoring system.
“However, we recommend that the provider implement a system as one staff member had last completed their medicines training in 2015.” from the report
- 01How do you now monitor when each staff member completes medicines and other required training?
- 02When was the most recent medicines training completed by each member of the current staff team?
- 03How are people's risk assessments and care plans reviewed, and how are changes shared with staff?
- 04How do you support people to maintain independence while managing risks such as leaving the home or substance abuse?
- 05How can residents and families raise concerns, and how are these concerns followed up?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 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 11 Angles Road
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 November 2010.
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 Lambeth
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 £1,250 a week. 76 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”
“She is just one of those people that looks around, sees what needs to be done and does it.”
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.