CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Athol House - Care Home Physical Disabilities
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks to people's health and safety were assessed and managed. Medicines, staffing, safeguarding and infection control were also found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear leadership, regular audits, involvement of people and relatives, and a positive culture. The provider also worked with other professionals and used lessons from incidents to improve care.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, but the building layout did not fully support people's independence.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 May 2023. One inspector and a member of the CQC medicines team visited. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and healthcare professionals, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, there were enough staff and infection control arrangements were in place.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and breached regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance. The provider had completed an action plan, and inspectors found it was no longer in breach.
The inspection did not assess all five key questions. The ratings for the questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating.
Safe risk management
People's health and safety risks were assessed with clear guidance for staff. The provider recorded and investigated accidents and updated care plans when needed.
“At this inspection we found the provider fully considered risks to people's health and safety and had appropriate risk management guidelines in place to mitigate these.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicine records matched care plans and stock checks. Staff had training and checks of their competence in administering medicines.
“At this inspection, we reviewed 3 people's MAR charts and found records were being kept of the application of people's medicated creams.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough suitably qualified staff. People said call bells were answered quickly, and this was also observed during the inspection.
“The provider ensured there were enough suitably qualified staff to provide people with care.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider had introduced regular audits covering areas such as medicines, call bells, infection control and care records. Problems found in audits were acted on quickly.
“At this inspection we found the provider was routinely conducting a number of audits to ensure people were receiving a safe service.” from the report
People involved
People and relatives were invited to meetings about the running of the home. Inspectors saw that feedback, including about food and activities, was considered.
“The provider engaged people in the running of the service.” from the report
Building layout
needs fixingAlthough care was individualised, inspectors found that the large building did not fully support the independence of people with learning disabilities. Families should ask how this affects their relative in practice.
“However, although the provider delivered an individualised level of care, we found the layout of the building did not optimise people's independence.” from the report
- 01How does the building layout affect my relative's independence and daily choices?
- 02What changes, if any, are planned to make the building better suited to people with learning disabilities?
- 03What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous inspection?
- 04How will you make sure medicines records, including topical creams, remain complete?
- 05How are people and relatives' views from meetings used to change food, activities or care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were not inspected and were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 August 2023 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, April 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines and risk management, and weak quality checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 09 March 2021. One inspector and a CQC medicines specialist visited. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and healthcare professionals, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was not always safe. Risk assessments were missing, incomplete or out of date. Medicines were not always recorded, authorised or monitored safely. Inspectors also found that one staff member had not been assessed as competent to give medicines and insulin by injection.
The home was not always well-led. Its checks had failed to identify problems with risks and medicines. Staff had not received appropriate training to support people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found breaches of Regulations 12 and 17, and said the provider had taken prompt action on some medicines issues after the inspection.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. This was worse than the previous Good rating, published in September 2018. The report says the home will continue to be monitored.
Infection control
The home was clean and had infection control arrangements covering COVID-19 and other infections. Inspectors were assured about testing, visiting, admissions and outbreak management.
“The provider had effective infection control practices in place.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The two staff files checked showed safe recruitment processes, including checks on identity, eligibility to work, references and criminal records.
“Checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable before they started working for the service.” from the report
Positive relationships
People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the home and said the manager was open, honest and approachable.
“People, staff and their relatives spoke highly about the registered manager.” from the report
Risk assessments
seriousSome risks, including pressure sores, seizures, smoking and falls, were not properly assessed or reviewed. This meant staff did not always have accurate information to keep people safe.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed however, systems were either not in place or robust enough to ensure people received safe care treatment.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousSome topical medicines were not recorded on the electronic medicines system. Inspectors also found an unauthorised timing change, a missed blood test and a staff member who had not been assessed as competent to give medicines and insulin by injection.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed however, systems were either not in place or robust enough to ensure the safe management of medicines.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits did not identify problems with risk assessments or medicines. The provider also had not acted on all outstanding fire safety work.
“Failure to effectively operate systems and processes to monitor and improve the quality of the service places people at risk of receiving inappropriate care and treatment.” from the report
Training and support
needs fixingStaff had not received training in supporting people with learning disabilities. Inspectors also saw occasions when people did not receive the specific reassurance or opportunities to express their views that they needed.
“The service was not able to demonstrate how they were meeting the principles of Right support, right care, right culture.” from the report
- 01Which risk assessments were updated after the inspection, and how are they now reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 02How are topical medicines recorded, and how do you check that blood tests and prescriber authorisations are completed on time?
- 03Has every staff member who gives medicines or insulin by injection now been assessed as competent?
- 04What training have staff completed to support people with learning disabilities and their individual needs?
- 05What action has been completed on the outstanding fire safety work and the quality assurance failures?
This inspection assessed Safe and Well-led; the report does not provide ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive, and the Safe and Well-led ratings had fallen from Good at the 2018 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 April 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.
Every inspection of Athol House - Care Home Physical Disabilities
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Athol House - Care Home Physical Disabilities →
- April 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Athol House - Care Home Physical Disabilities →
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 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 Southwark
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 £1,210 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”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.