CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 3 The Green
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some communal areas, bathrooms, decorations and furnishings needed repair, renewal or regular maintenance. Staff supervision had not met the provider's own policy, although a new six to eight weekly supervision plan had been introduced.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices, become more independent, maintain relationships and take part in work, activities and community life.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Staff understood people's communication needs and supported people to take part in activities, social clubs, education, work and holidays.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective quality checks, regular audits and a positive, person-centred culture. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the home needed to improve its environment and staff supervision.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 23 February 2022. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, managers and relatives. They observed care and checked care, medicines, training and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, were treated with kindness and were supported to make choices and take part in activities.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Some shared areas, bathrooms and furnishings were worn and needed repair or renewal. Staff supervision had also not been taking place as often as the provider's policy required, although a new plan had been put in place.
The previous inspection, published in June 2019 under the previous provider, rated the service Requires Improvement and found breaches of regulation. This inspection found that the required improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Safe medicines support
Staff who administered medicines were trained and assessed as competent. Medicines were stored, received and disposed of safely, with regular audits.
“At this inspection good progress had been made and measures subsequently put in place meant people now received their medicines safely and at the right time.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with respect and adapting their approach to individual needs. People were supported to have privacy, dignity and choice.
“We saw staff were caring in their approach to people and understood the need to approach each person in the way they responded to best.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's health needs, life histories, preferences and goals. Staff supported people to develop independence and take part in chosen activities.
“Care plans were personalised and contained information relating to people's physical, emotional and mental health needs, their life histories and matters that are important to them.” from the report
Good oversight
Managers used audits, handovers, meetings and action plans to monitor care and make improvements. The home also worked with health and social care professionals.
“There were effective processes in place to monitor the quality of the service and to make any improvements if required.” from the report
Worn shared areas
needs fixingSome communal areas looked tired and needed refurbishment and maintenance. Bathrooms, decorations and furnishings also needed repair or renewal, and the home said this was a priority.
“Some communal areas of the care home looked worn and tired and in need of refurbishment and regular maintenance.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingFormal staff supervision had not been happening as often as the provider's own policy required. Managers had introduced a new supervision schedule, which inspectors said they would monitor.
“The registered manager acknowledged the frequency of these formal meetings did not meet the provider's own policy to do with staff supervision.” from the report
One relative had concerns
minorMost relatives were positive about the care, but one relative said staff were not as caring towards their family member as they would have wished.
“One relative told us they did not feel staff were as caring towards their family member as they might wish them to be.” from the report
- 01What refurbishment or renewal has been completed in the communal areas and bathrooms since the inspection?
- 02What work is still outstanding on the home environment, and when will it be completed?
- 03How often do staff now receive formal supervision, and how do managers check that this happens?
- 04How will you make sure staff continue to understand my relative's individual communication, anxiety and support needs?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing care and raising any concerns?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control, and it checked whether improvements from the previous inspection had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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 3 The Green
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 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 Sutton
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. 81 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”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.