CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Caretech Community Services (No 2) Limited - 88 Park Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment and safe medicines systems. Records showed medicines were administered as prescribed with no gaps in the medicine records checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People received suitable food, support with healthcare and care that respected their choices and legal rights.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. People had positive relationships with staff, and staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised, with information about communication, preferences, needs and goals. People were supported with individual activities, outings and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was approachable and involved in the home. Audits, staff meetings, feedback and action plans were used to monitor care and make improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Caretech Community Services (No 2) Limited - 88 Park Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 13 and 14 March 2019. One inspector visited the home, spoke with three people, three relatives and four care staff, and observed care.
Inspectors checked care records, medicines, staff files, risk assessments, audits and policies. They found people were happy and settled, and that staff knew them well. Care was described as safe, caring, effective, responsive and well-led.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and/or autism. All five CQC areas were rated Good. This means inspectors found the legal requirements were met and that people received consistently good care at the time of the inspection.
Kind relationships
People had positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff respond to people with care, respect and humour.
“During the inspection we observed that people were supported in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, communication needs, goals and support strategies. They were reviewed monthly or sooner when needs changed.
“Care plans were person centred and gave detailed information about the person, their background, their needs, behavioural traits, likes and dislikes, the goals they wanted to achieve and how they wished to be supported with all their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine records were complete, medicines were stored securely and staff were trained and assessed as competent to administer them.
“Safe medicine administration and management systems in place ensured that people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Choice and activities
People helped plan their days and were supported to take part in activities and outings that interested them.
“Every morning people sat down with a staff member and planned their day with things that they wanted to do.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess whether the home can meet my relative's needs before offering a place?
- 02How are my relative's medicines, including any 'as and when required' medicines, recorded and reviewed?
- 03How would you find out how my relative communicates, including signs that they are happy, upset or in pain?
- 04What activities and outings could be arranged around my relative's interests and choices?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in care plan reviews and decisions about support?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas, with the home and the care provided both considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 April 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with improvements needed to supervision, risk records and care plan reviews.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 June 2016. One inspector met everyone living at the home and spoke with three people, staff, the registered manager and a visiting professional. The inspector reviewed care records, medicines records and staff files, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, good support with health and nutrition, respectful care and activities based on people's choices.
There were some shortfalls. Supervision had not taken place regularly, some risk records did not clearly show the level of risk, and care plans did not clearly record people's and families' involvement in reviews. The home had identified some of these issues and was working on changes.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records were complete. Staff had clear instructions for medicines given when needed.
“People's medicine administration records (MAR) were completed without any errors or gaps.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate sensitively and protect people's dignity, privacy and confidentiality.
“We saw staff communicating in a sensitive manner getting down to the level of the person and giving eye contact” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's likes, dislikes, communication and activities. People were supported to make choices and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“Care plans detailed the individual activities people enjoyed.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People were supported to attend health appointments, stay hydrated and eat food suited to their needs.
“The service supported people to stay healthy and access appropriate medical care.” from the report
Irregular staff supervision
needs fixingThere were large gaps in supervision records, and supervision was not happening every four weeks as expected. Supervision had restarted before the inspection and the home said it was addressing this.
“The supervision agreement signed by staff stated supervision should be every four weeks and this was not occurring.” from the report
Risk records
needs fixingRisk assessments were being moved to a new format because the old records did not always make risk levels clear. One person with epilepsy did not have personalised guidance about how their seizures appeared and what staff should do.
“One person with a diagnosis of epilepsy did not have a risk assessment that specified how their seizures presented and what measures specific to them should be taken.” from the report
Care review records
needs fixingThe home said people and families took part in reviews, but the care plans did not clearly record who attended or the changes agreed. Inspectors made a recommendation about following best practice in involving people and relatives.
“This meant it was not clear that reviews were taking place with people and family involved.” from the report
Recruitment check
needs fixingOne staff member started work before the DBS check had been received, although the provider said the person worked under supervision and had since changed its policy.
“However the fourth staff member had applied for a DBS check but had commenced their post before the DBS check was received.” from the report
Staff workload
minorStaff absence had led to some staff working several days without a break. The home said it had changed the system to help ensure staff had regular days off.
“This had led to some staff working a number of days without a break” from the report
- 01Have all risk assessments been moved to the new format, and does the epilepsy guidance now explain each person's seizure signs and the action staff should take?
- 02How do you check that staff supervision takes place every four weeks?
- 03How are people's and relatives' views recorded at care plan reviews, including who attended and what was agreed?
- 04What checks are now completed before a new staff member starts work, including receipt of the DBS check?
- 05What did the planned survey of people and relatives find, and what changes were made as a result?
This was an unannounced inspection of the home's overall quality and all five key questions; the previous inspection on 2 July 2014 found the service met the standards inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 September 2016 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 - 88 Park Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Caretech Community Services (No 2) Limited - 88 Park Road →
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Caretech Community Services (No 2) Limited - 88 Park Road →
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
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.