CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Anita Dorfman House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received their medicines safely and on time, and staff were trained. However, some PRN stock records did not match actual stock, and some medicines were not stored in line with manufacturers' guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supervision. People received suitable food, health checks and referrals, and staff followed the principles of consent and best-interest decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, caring and patient. Staff respected privacy, dignity, religious needs and people's choices, while supporting independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's needs and preferences. People had access to activities, communication support and culturally relevant events, and knew how to complain.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People, relatives and staff felt the home was well led, but medicines audits were not effective enough. Leaders had not put suitable arrangements in place when medicines rooms became too warm.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, effective care, but medicines management and leadership required improvement.
This was the home's first inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 16 June 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They also checked care records, medicines, staff files, safety records and the building.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people's needs well. Care was personalised, food and activities were well received, and people were supported to make choices and stay independent.
Inspectors found problems with medicines. Some records did not match the actual stock. Guidance for some medicines had not been signed by a GP, and some medicines were stored above the manufacturers' recommended temperature.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because medicines audits had not identified or dealt with these problems properly.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind, caring and patient. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and respecting their privacy and independence.
“People told us they enjoyed living at Anita Dorfman House, that staff were kind, caring and patient.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's health needs, interests, preferences and cultural and religious needs. People and relatives were involved in care decisions.
“People's care plans were person centred and held detailed information about their care and support needs.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had relevant training, supervision and competency checks.
“There were a sufficient number of staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Activities and communication
People could take part in varied activities, use communication aids and access culturally relevant events. Their choices about joining activities were respected.
“People participated in a wide range of activities to meet their needs.” from the report
Infection control
The home had suitable infection prevention arrangements, including safe use of protective equipment and procedures for managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousRecords for some medicines prescribed when required did not match the actual stock. This could make it harder to check that medicines were managed correctly.
“Actual stock levels of prescribed when required (PRN) medicines did not always correspond with what was recorded” from the report
Medicines guidance and storage
seriousSome PRN guidance had not been signed and dated by a GP. Medicines were also kept in rooms that were too warm, without a suitable risk assessment or advice from the dispensing pharmacist.
“We found that the medicines rooms were excessively warm” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingMedicines audits were not always effective and had failed to identify the problems found by inspectors. CQC recommended that the home improve its medicines quality assurance.
“Medication audits were not always conducted effectively.” from the report
- 01How have you corrected the PRN medicines stock records, and how do you now check that they remain accurate?
- 02Have all PRN protocols been signed and dated by the relevant GP?
- 03How are medicines stored safely if the medicines rooms become too warm?
- 04What changes have you made to medicines audits since the inspection, and can you show us the action plan?
- 05How will you involve residents and relatives in checking whether these improvements have worked?
This was the first unannounced inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
Every inspection of Anita Dorfman House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- May 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 May 2019.
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 Harrow
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 £1,330 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“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.