CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 89a Hampton Road East
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The home was inspected for infection control and prevention and was found to be managing risks well and keeping people safe from infections.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care that met their needs and helped them maintain good health. Staff were well trained and supported, and care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Leadership was exceptional, with managers promoting a positive culture that empowered people and staff. Quality checks and improvements were well embedded.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found effective and well-led care with outstanding leadership and person-centred support.
Inspectors visited the home unannounced on 8 September 2022 to check how well it was supporting people with learning disabilities and mental health needs. They spoke with residents, staff, relatives, and professionals, and reviewed care plans and management records.
The home was found to provide effective care that helped people live fulfilling lives. Staff supported residents to make their own choices and develop new skills. The environment was safe, clean, and suited to people's needs.
Leadership at the home was outstanding. Managers worked alongside staff and promoted a positive, inclusive culture. They encouraged independence and creativity, helping people try new activities and achieve personal goals.
Since the last inspection in 2019, the home had made good improvements and was no longer in breach of regulations. Relatives praised the service highly and people were supported to be active in their community.
Person-centred culture
The home promotes independence and supports people to try new activities and achieve personal goals.
“The service's positive risk-taking, strengths-based approach meant people were consistently supported to enjoy a wide range of opportunities and positive challenges based on what they wanted to do and try.” from the report
Good staff training and support
Staff receive training relevant to people's needs and have regular supervision and appraisals.
“The registered manager checked staff members' competency to help ensure they understood and applied training and best practice.” from the report
Involvement of people and families
People and their families are actively involved in care planning and service activities.
“People and their families were actively involved in their care planning.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How does the home support my relative to make their own choices and take positive risks?
- 02What opportunities are there for my relative to try new activities and develop new skills?
- 03How are families involved in care planning and day-to-day life at the home?
- 04Can you explain how staff are trained and supported to meet the specific needs of residents?
- 05What systems are in place to monitor and improve the quality of care?
This was a focused inspection looking at Effective and Well-led; Safe was inspected but not rated; other areas carry over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 October 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, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, caring and responsive support, but weaknesses in consent records and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed support and checked care plans, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. People were treated with kindness and respect, supported to make choices, and helped to develop independence and take part in activities. Staff understood people's needs and there were suitable arrangements for medicines, safeguarding and staffing.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. One person's restrictive daily arrangements were not recorded in current plans. Inspectors also found cleaning substances that were not stored securely, although this was corrected during the inspection.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The provider was in breach of Regulation 17 because its quality and safety monitoring systems had not found or dealt with these issues promptly.
Kind and respectful support
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed kind, calm and respectful interactions.
“We observed staff speaking with people with kindness and respect.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to maintain family relationships and take part in activities, education, employment and holidays.
“Daily records of support showed staff supported people to access a variety of meaningful activities, hobbies, and employment and education opportunities.” from the report
Restrictions not fully recorded
seriousOne person's room and some belongings were locked, with staff holding the keys. These restrictions were not recorded in current support or risk plans, so it was not clear that consent and ongoing review had been properly documented.
“These arrangements were restrictive of the person's liberty and were not recorded in their current support plan or risk management plans.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe provider's audits did not identify the missing records or the unsafe storage of cleaning substances quickly enough. This led to a breach of Regulation 17.
“This meant the systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service had not been sufficiently robust to have identified or taken timely action on the areas for improvement we identified.” from the report
Cleaning substances not secure
seriousToilet cleaner and odour neutraliser were kept in an area accessible to everyone, despite the home's risk assessment saying hazardous substances should be locked or bolted away. The manager corrected this during the inspection.
“We found bottles of toilet cleaner and odour neutraliser kept in the downstairs toilet room which was accessible to everyone.” from the report
End-of-life preferences not explored
minorNo one needed end-of-life care during the inspection, but inspectors did not see evidence that people's preferences and choices about it had been explored.
“We did not see evidence in the support plans we viewed that the service had explored with people their preferences and choices in relation to end of live care.” from the report
Environment could feel more homely
minorProminent cleaning instructions helped with safety and infection control, but inspectors felt the home was less homely and personalised as a result.
“This practice meant the environment was not as homely and personalised as it could have been” from the report
- 01How have you recorded and reviewed any restrictions on a person's room, belongings or access since the inspection?
- 02How do your current audits check that hazardous cleaning substances are locked or securely stored?
- 03What changes have you made to your quality monitoring system after the Regulation 17 breach?
- 04How are people and their families involved in recording consent and reviewing restrictive arrangements?
- 05Have you now explored people's preferences about end-of-life care, where this is relevant?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 2019 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 89a Hampton Road East
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 November 2011.
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 Hounslow
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 £1,270 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“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.