CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Charlotte House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found medicines were not always stored or given safely. They also found unsecured cleaning products, a choking risk that was not properly supervised and some cleaning shortfalls, although the provider took action after the visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained and supported, people had enough to eat and drink, and they could access healthcare services.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff treating people politely, respecting privacy and involving them in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's preferences. The home supported communication, activities, family contact and end-of-life wishes, and complaints were investigated.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had systems for audits, feedback and learning from incidents. Inspectors found a positive culture, although some safety monitoring systems had not worked effectively.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines, some safety risks and cleaning needed improvement.
Inspectors visited without notice on 17 and 25 October 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment records, audits, equipment and the environment.
People and relatives generally said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found kind staff, personalised care, good support with food, health needs, activities and end-of-life care. The home was also found to be effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
The main concerns were about medicines, unsecured cleaning products, a person at risk of choking being left with food and drink, and some areas not being properly cleaned. The provider took action after the inspection to reduce these risks and improve monitoring.
The overall rating is Good, but Safe is Requires Improvement. This means most aspects of care were good, but there was limited assurance that people were always protected from avoidable harm.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly, knowing them well and respecting their privacy.
“We saw staff were kind and caring when they were supporting them. They knew people well and spoke with them politely.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included detailed information about people's needs and preferences. People and relatives were involved in reviewing their care.
“People received care which met their needs and reflected their preferences.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People could take part in group and individual activities, outings and celebrations. Visitors were welcome and staff supported people to keep in touch with family and friends.
“People were supported to take part in a range of different activities.” from the report
End-of-life support
Staff had training in end-of-life care and worked with specialist teams. Care plans recorded people's wishes and families could stay with their loved ones.
“The staff worked closely with the palliative care teams to help support people to have comfortable and pain free care.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff received induction, regular training and meetings with managers. The provider checked that new staff were suitable and competent.
“New staff completed inductions which involved a range of training, shadowing experienced workers and assessments of their skills and knowledge.” from the report
Medicines were not always managed safely
seriousSome medicines were stored at the wrong temperature, one person received the wrong formulation and an expired medicine was found. The provider acted after inspectors identified these issues.
“Medicines were not always safely managed.” from the report
Cleaning products and chemicals were not always secure
seriousSome cleaning products were accessible, and a sluice room containing equipment and chemicals was not locked. Managers secured the items during the inspection.
“Some cleaning products were not stored securely.” from the report
Choking risk was not properly managed on one occasion
seriousA person whose care plan said they were at risk of choking was left alone with food and drink. Managers agreed to investigate and improve supervision.
“A person whose care plan stated they were at risk of choking, had been left in a room with food and drink.” from the report
Some areas needed better cleaning
needs fixingInspectors found that some kitchenette areas in the main dining rooms were not properly cleaned. The provider said it had introduced stronger checks.
“On the day of the inspection, some areas of the environment were not properly cleaned.” from the report
Call bell access and delays
needs fixingSome people said they could not reach their call bells and that staff sometimes took a while to respond. Most responses were prompt according to the provider's audit, but managers agreed staff should explain delays.
“Some people told us they could not reach their call bells.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines storage, expiry-date checks and checking that people receive the correct formulation?
- 02How do you now make sure cleaning products, chemicals and sluice rooms are secure at all times?
- 03How will you make sure people at risk of choking are supervised whenever they eat and drink?
- 04How do you check that all areas, including dining-room kitchenettes, are cleaned properly?
- 05How do you make sure people can reach their call bells and understand what happens if there is a delay?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, with the 25 October visit specifically checking medicines management; infection prevention and control was also considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 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, February 2022
Charlotte House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, visiting arrangements and staffing measures.
The inspection took place on 21 January 2022. It was announced and the home was given 24 hours' notice.
This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, arranged testing, managed admissions and supported visits. They also found the environment was clean and that there were plans to cover unexpected staff absences.
The home was not given an overall quality rating, and the Safe question was marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the visit was not a full inspection of all areas of care.
Visits and family contact
The home supported visits as safely as possible, including overnight visits for people receiving end-of-life care. Families were kept informed and people could use tablets for calls between visits.
“The provider facilitated as many visits as they could safely do, allowing people to celebrate special events and see loved ones when they needed to.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found regular cleaning, safety checks and deep cleaning of bedrooms and furnishings.
“The environment was clean, and people were supported to access this safely.” from the report
Staffing and PPE
The home reported enough staff to meet people's needs, with plans for unexpected absences. Staff had training in using and disposing of PPE.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and the provider had contingency plans to cover unexpected staff absences, such as those due to isolation because of COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently arranged, including visits for people receiving end-of-life care?
- 02How do you support people who are anxious about staff wearing PPE or who have hearing impairments?
- 03How do you cover staff absences caused by COVID-19 isolation, and how could this affect my relative's care?
- 04What happens after a positive COVID-19 test for a resident or member of staff, and how are families told?
- 05How often are my relative's bedroom, curtains and mattress deep cleaned?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; the home was inspected but not rated overall or for the Safe question. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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.
Every inspection of Charlotte House
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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 Hounslow
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 £1,270 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.