CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Caretech Community Services (No 2) Limited - 42 Russell Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable staffing, risk management, recruitment checks, infection control and medicines systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had personalised care plans and were supported with food, healthcare, communication and everyday choices. Staff had relevant training and support.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during the focused visit. The report says ratings for questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during the focused visit. The report says ratings for questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found experienced staff, person-centred care plans, clear management arrangements and effective quality checks.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Caretech Community Services (No 2) Limited - 42 Russell Lane was rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with some repair and redecoration still needed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 January 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with four people living in the home, observed care, spoke with staff and the manager, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments, good support with food and healthcare, and care that respected people's choices and dignity.
Some areas needed repair and redecoration. The provider said funding had been approved and action was being taken. The home was last rated Good in 2018, and the inspected ratings remained Good.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, records were up to date, and staff administering medicines had their training and competence checked.
“Medicines were safely stored and locked away, accurate and up to date medicines records were maintained for individuals.” from the report
Enough experienced staff
Inspectors found there were enough qualified staff to meet people's needs. Many staff had worked at the home for several years, supporting continuity.
“Most staff had worked for the service for many years and therefore provided continuity in care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, goals, communication and cultural requirements. Staff knew people well and supported their choices.
“Care plans were extremely person-centred, which reflected people's individual needs, aspirations goals and outcomes.” from the report
Good health and daily support
People were supported with eating and drinking, health appointments and contact with healthcare professionals. Staff understood their health conditions and what to do if they became unwell.
“Staff worked with health professionals to meet people's health needs in a consistent and timely manner.” from the report
Repairs and redecoration
minorInspectors found that some parts of the home needed repair and redecoration. The manager said funding had been approved and the provider was taking action.
“Some areas of the home required repair and redecoration.” from the report
- 01Which areas of the home needed repair or redecoration at the inspection, and what work has now been completed?
- 02How will you support my relative's communication needs, cultural needs and personal goals?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given safely and that staff remain competent?
- 04How will my relative be supported with health appointments and any changes in their health?
- 05How are relatives and advocates asked for feedback about the care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were not inspected during this visit and the overall rating used previous ratings where needed. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with effective management and no serious concerns.
The inspection visit took place on 28 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, the registered manager and a health care professional. They also reviewed care records, staff records, medicines information, complaints, safeguarding records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training and good links with health and social care professionals.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's needs, choices, communication and behaviour. Care plans were detailed and included activities, health needs, personal preferences and support for maintaining independence.
The home was last inspected in January 2016 and was also rated Good. This inspection found that the Good rating continued, with no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring and patient. Staff promoted dignity, privacy and independence.
“People who used the service and their relatives were positive about the attitude and approach of the staff who supported them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, choices, communication needs, health needs and ways to support them when they became anxious or unwell.
“Each person had a Life Story document, which ensured their unique information and life stories were written down in one place, including choices and preferences and how they wished to be supported.” from the report
Open management
The new registered manager was described as visible, approachable and hands-on. The home used meetings, surveys, feedback and regular audits to review its work.
“People and staff commented positively about the registered manager and how the service was managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and match staffing levels to my relative's specific needs, including one-to-one support?
- 02How will you support my relative to take medicines safely, including if they refuse or want to self-administer?
- 03How will you use my relative's communication needs, preferences, triggers and hospital passport in everyday care?
- 04What activities and opportunities for independence would be available for my relative each week?
- 05How can our family give feedback to the registered manager, and how will we be told about any changes to care?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, and the shorter report format was used because the overall Good rating had not changed since January 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 2018 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 Caretech Community Services (No 2) Limited - 42 Russell Lane
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Caretech Community Services (No 2) Limited - 42 Russell Lane →
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Caretech Community Services (No 2) Limited - 42 Russell Lane →
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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 Barnet
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 £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on life.”
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.