CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Clarence Road
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found poor infection control, unsafe hot water, problems with the premises and unsafe medicines administration records. They also found that people were not always protected from avoidable harm.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The home supported people with food, drink, consent and access to health professionals. However, the premises were not suitable in places and had trip hazards and other defects.
- Caring?
- Good
- No rating was given for Caring in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- No rating was given for Responsive in this report.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The systems used to check quality and safety did not find several problems or ensure that repairs and other actions happened promptly. Some relatives also reported poor communication about management changes and care reviews.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found infection control, medicines, premises and management systems that put people at risk.
Inspectors visited without notice on 8, 9, 24 and 28 March 2023. They spoke with five people, two relatives, the registered manager and five staff. They also checked care records, staff files and management records.
They found problems with cleaning, waste disposal and the use of protective equipment. Some bathroom water was hot enough to cause burns. There were also loose tiles, wiring, flooring and taps. Medicines were not always recorded safely, and the home did not always identify or act on these problems quickly.
People said they felt safe, could get help from staff and understood their medicines. Staff were trained and people were supported to make choices, eat and drink, and access health professionals. However, the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Staffing and safeguarding
People said they could get help when needed. Staff understood how to report suspected abuse, and rotas showed shifts were covered.
“People told us they could seek help from staff when required.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had completed the Care Certificate and said they could seek advice from experienced staff and managers.
“All staff had completed The Care Certificate.” from the report
Choice and consent
Staff asked for consent and did not force people to accept care. People were supported to make their own choices.
“We observed staff ask for people's consent to care before they delivered it.” from the report
Health support
The home worked with health professionals and recorded information about people's appointments and care.
“The service worked well with external health professionals to ensure people received support when they became unwell.” from the report
Infection control
seriousThe home had a strong smell of urine, waste was put in the wrong bins and staff or contractors entered the kitchen without suitable protective equipment.
“People were not protected from the risks of acquiring an infection as infection control practices were not effective.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousA medicines record had been signed before the medicine was due, including for the following evening. The issue was not recorded as a medicine error or incident.
“We viewed a random sample of MAR (Medicine Administration Record) charts and found one person's medicines had been signed for before the time to administer them.” from the report
Unsafe premises
seriousInspectors found loose tiles, wiring, flooring and taps. Hot water in two bathroom sinks was measured at 56.5 and 56.8 degrees Celsius, above the stated safe temperature.
“In two of the bathroom sinks we found the water to be scalding, the two separate readings were 56.5 and 56.8 degrees Celsius.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousManagement checks did not identify several safety, cleaning, repair and hot water problems. Inspectors said action was often taken only after the inspection.
“The systems in place were not effective in identifying issues, improvement areas and resolving them within a timely manner to avoid potential harm to people.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingRelatives said they were not told openly about management changes and had to contact the home themselves about meetings and late care reviews.
“People, their relatives and staff did not feel involved with changes at management level.” from the report
Homely environment
needs fixingRelatives described the home as not warm or homely. Inspectors also found wear, damage and hazards in the building.
“Relatives we spoke to commented that the service was not homely.” from the report
- 01What has been done to stop the strong smell of urine and to make sure clinical waste and PPE are disposed of correctly?
- 02How are medicines now checked, recorded and investigated when an error is found?
- 03Have all loose tiles, wiring, flooring, stair guards, taps and other repairs been completed, and how are they checked?
- 04How are bathroom water temperatures monitored to prevent scalding?
- 05How will relatives be kept informed about management changes and care reviews?
This inspection rated Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not given ratings in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 July 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, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with strong leadership and no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. Inspectors visited on 28 November, 4 December and 17 December 2019. They spoke with six people, five staff members and one relative. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home supported 15 adults with mental health needs. Inspectors found that risks were reviewed, staffing levels were suitable, medicines were managed safely and the home was clean. People received support from trained staff and were helped to access health services and eat healthily.
Inspectors found staff to be kind, respectful and patient. People were involved in their care and supported to make choices, maintain relationships and take part in activities. The home had effective complaint and quality checking systems.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. This was the same overall rating and the same rating for each question as at the previous inspection, published on 3 June 2017.
Managing risks
People had risk assessments covering areas such as mental health and self-neglect. These were updated after incidents or changes in health needs.
“Risk was well managed and reviewed very well to ensure people were safe from the risk of harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw kind interactions and found that privacy, dignity and equality were respected.
“People were cared for by staff who were respectful and kind.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and care plans included their preferences, dislikes, aspirations and goals. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“People received care that was planned to meet their individual needs and goals.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to maintain relationships, attend places of worship and take part in activities such as museums, yoga, seaside visits and local markets.
“There were a number of activities organised for people at the service.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home used audits, feedback and external checks to monitor care and identify improvements. Staff described feeling supported by the management.
“There were effective quality assurance systems set up to monitor the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and review my relative's mental health risks and signs that they may be becoming unwell?
- 02How are medicines stored and reviewed, and how would you explain any changes to my relative?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available to my relative based on their interests and goals?
- 04How would you support my relative's communication needs and involve them in decisions about their care?
- 05How can my family raise a concern or complaint, and how will we be kept informed about the response?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous Good ratings reviewed and retained. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 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 Clarence Road
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- July 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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 Hackney
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“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.