CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Birchwood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors checked fire safety and infection prevention. They found people were protected from fire risks and were assured about infection control, but they did not assess the whole Safe key question.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This key question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found people were protected from fire risks and infection risks during this focused check.
The inspection took place on 16 August 2022 after concerns about fire safety at another service run by the provider. Inspectors checked fire arrangements at the home and infection prevention measures.
They found clear evacuation routes, working and regularly checked fire equipment, fire drills, trained staff and enough staff to respond to an emergency. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan.
Inspectors were also assured about infection control. Visitors were checked on arrival, and staff used protective equipment and encouraged handwashing and mask wearing.
This was a targeted inspection, so the home was not given a new overall rating. Its last rating was Good, published on 7 August 2020. The Safe rating was not reviewed in full.
Fire safety systems
The home had clear escape routes, regular fire checks and maintained detection systems and equipment. Problems found during checks were acted on promptly.
“Fire detection systems and fire safety equipment were well maintained and regularly checked.” from the report
Emergency preparation
Staff had fire safety training and knew what to do. There were enough staff on duty to support people during an emergency, and each person had an evacuation plan.
“People had personal emergency evacuation plans detailing their support needs in the event of an emergency.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. Visitors were checked, and staff used protective equipment as required.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would staffing increase if more people began using the home?
- 02When was the most recent fire drill, and what was learned from it?
- 03How are each person's personal emergency evacuation needs kept up to date?
- 04How often are the fire alarm, fire doors, emergency lighting and escape routes checked?
- 05What infection control measures are currently expected of visitors and staff?
This was a targeted inspection of specific fire safety concerns and infection prevention and control; the other key questions were not assessed and the previous ratings were not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 November 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, but staff training needed improvement.
The inspection took place on 13 January 2020. One inspector spoke with people, staff and a relative, and reviewed care records, staff files and management checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement because some staff were not up to date with important training.
People were supported to make choices, stay safe, maintain their health and develop independence. Care plans were detailed and personalised. Medicines, staffing, infection control and complaints systems were found to be managed well.
The inspectors recommended that the provider improve how it keeps staff training up to date. They also found that some safeguarding incidents were not clearly recorded, although no regulation was reported as breached.
Safe medicines management
Medicines records were complete and accurate. Storage, stock checks and guidance for medicines given when needed were also in place.
“Medicine administration records were fully and accurately completed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, goals and important details. Staff supported people to take part in activities and become more independent.
“Care plans were detailed, personalised, contained people's preferences and what was important to them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in daily decisions about meals and activities. Staff supported people to make choices and maintain independence.
“People using the service had a meeting every morning to decide what activities and meals they wished to have that day.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People and a relative said staff were caring. Staff understood how to protect privacy, dignity and equality.
“People and a relative told us staff were caring and listened to them.” from the report
Open management
People and staff could speak with managers, and regular meetings allowed views and suggestions to be discussed.
“People and staff had regular meetings so they could be updated on service development and could give their views about the service.” from the report
Staff training was not fully up to date
needs fixingSome staff had not completed relevant training, including safe eating and drinking and insulin administration. This could affect how consistently people receive support.
“36% of staff were not up to date with safe eating and drinking and 29% were not up to date with insulin administration.” from the report
Safeguarding records were unclear
needs fixingThe manager understood the reporting responsibilities, but some safeguarding incidents were not clearly recorded and the reasons for not reporting them were unclear.
“Not all incidents were clearly documented; and the rationale for not raising them as safeguarding concerns was indistinct.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the training needed for safe eating and drinking and insulin administration?
- 02How do you check that staff remain competent in supporting people with specific health conditions?
- 03How are safeguarding incidents recorded, reviewed and reported now?
- 04What action was taken after the medicines room was found to be above the recommended temperature?
- 05How do people and relatives give feedback if they do not respond to the usual feedback process?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care and the premises; the report says the inspector reviewed two people's care records and two staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 2020 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 Birchwood House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 September 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 Newham
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 £1,190 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She is a safe pair of hands and her years of experience certainly shine through.”
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
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.