CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Carlene House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse, assess risks and manage medicines. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, induction and supervision. People were supported with food, health appointments, their choices and the least restrictive care possible.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, privacy and dignity. Staff knew people's preferences and encouraged them to make choices and remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, wishes and communication methods. People were supported to maintain relationships, follow interests, join activities and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open, person-focused culture, regular feedback and quality checks. The manager worked with staff, relatives and other professionals.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Carlene House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor issues about incident guidance and manager registration.
This was a planned inspection on 22 October 2019. One inspector spoke with people using the home, staff, the manager and relatives. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home supported up to 10 adults with learning disabilities, and all 10 places were in use. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicine systems, suitable risk assessments and good access to health care. People were treated kindly, involved in decisions and supported to be independent and take part in activities.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, unchanged from the previous inspection published on 28 April 2017.
Enough suitable staff
People and relatives said there were enough staff. The home did not use agency staff, and some staff had worked there for a long time.
“There were enough staff to meet their care and support needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and wishes. They were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“People received personalised care, which was recorded in their care plans and reflected their wishes and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw kind and courteous interactions. People said staff respected their privacy and dignity and supported their independence.
“People were treated with kindness and their privacy and dignity were respected.” from the report
Activities and community life
People had weekly activity timetables and were supported to go out, follow their interests and keep in touch with relatives.
“People were supported to engage in meaningful activities of their choice and were involved in the local community.” from the report
Incident guidance needed more detail
minorInspectors found that guidance for caring for one person after a particular type of incident was not comprehensive enough. The manager sent an updated version after the inspection.
“However, we noted the guidance on how to care for one person following a certain type of incident could be more comprehensive.” from the report
Manager registration was delayed
minorThe home did not have a manager registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection. The provider said the application had been delayed by circumstances beyond its control.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01What was the incident that led to the guidance being updated, and how is the new guidance being followed?
- 02Has the manager's CQC registration application now been completed, and who is legally responsible for the home while it is delayed?
- 03How will you make sure care plans continue to be reviewed when people's needs change?
- 04What activities and community outings would be available for my relative?
- 05How would my relative and our family raise a concern or complaint, and how would it be followed up?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and it looked at both the care and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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, April 2017
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong activities and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 and 17 February 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff, relatives and a health professional. They observed care, checked records and looked at medicines, staffing, training, care plans and quality checks.
The home supported up to ten adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with respect and involved in decisions about their care. Staff knew people well, supported their health and provided a wide range of activities at home and in the community.
The home had a registered manager and an open culture. Records were up to date, complaints were handled and the manager monitored the quality of care. All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
The report says the home met the regulations inspected against. Its previous inspection in January 2015 also found that it met the regulations.
People's safety
Inspectors found effective safeguarding arrangements, suitable risk assessments, enough staff and safe medicines management.
“People were safe and treated with respect and dignity.” from the report
Kind, individual care
Staff knew people well and supported their choices, dignity and communication needs.
“Staff provided good support, care and encouragement to people.” from the report
Activities and choice
People chose what they did and were supported to take part in activities at home and in the local community.
“People were actively encouraged and supported by the manager and staff to decide if they wished to join in with an extensive range of recreational activities” from the report
Food and health support
People chose meals, received alternatives when wanted and had their nutrition, fluid intake and health needs monitored.
“People chose the meals they wanted, participated in food shopping and could change their minds at any time with alternatives provided.” from the report
Strong management
The home had an open culture, regular staff support and quality checks covering the service.
“The quality assurance, feedback and recording systems covered all aspects of the service constantly monitoring standards and driving improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure my relative's care plan reflects their current preferences and changing needs?
- 02Which activities could my relative join, and how would you support them to choose and take part?
- 03How would you support my relative with meals, nutrition, health appointments and any special dietary needs?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in decisions about care and capacity?
- 05How can we raise a concern or complaint, and how will we be kept informed about the response?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, involving observations, discussions with people, staff, relatives and a health professional, and checks of care, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 2017 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 Carlene House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 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 Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 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”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.