CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Colin Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were stored and recorded safely, and staffing levels had improved. Recruitment checks and safeguarding arrangements were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, supervision and support. People were helped to attend healthcare appointments, make choices and live as independently as possible.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that people were treated with dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and daily activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people's needs and preferences, and people took part in activities such as volunteering, education and using the local gym. However, some people lacked positive relationships outside their usual support network.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was experienced and the home had quality checks, staff meetings and systems for gathering feedback. Communication with relatives had improved and the staff team was more stable.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some people needing more help to build relationships.
This was an unannounced inspection over 12 and 13 September 2019. One inspector spoke with all four people living in the home, four staff members and two relatives. Records about care, medicines, staffing and management were also checked.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks and medicines were managed safely, staff understood people's needs, and people were supported with healthcare, daily choices and activities.
There were some areas to improve. Some people had limited positive relationships and risked social isolation. Inspectors also found that people's goals were not clear at the time, although reviews and plans were put in place after the inspection.
The previous inspection had rated the home Requires Improvement and found several breaches. This inspection found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Safer staffing
The home had reviewed staffing levels and had enough staff during the day to support people with activities and outings. Recruitment checks had also improved.
“The service had reviewed the staffing levels and there were sufficient staff on duty in the daytime so people who needed support could attend activities of their choice.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff were trained and medicines were checked regularly, with no recent errors in the records reviewed.
“People's medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.” from the report
Respect and choice
People were treated respectfully and were involved in decisions about their care. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as they wanted.
“People's privacy was maintained, and their dignity and independence promoted.” from the report
Activities and healthcare
People were supported to attend healthcare appointments and take part in activities in the home and local community.
“People took part in a range of activities including volunteering roles, adult education classes and attending the local gym.” from the report
Improved management
The home had regular audits, action plans and meetings to monitor care and improve the service. The manager was registered with the CQC, unlike at the previous inspection.
“Monitoring and quality assurance processes were in place.” from the report
Risk of social isolation
needs fixingSome people did not have enough positive relationships outside their everyday care and support. Inspectors recommended creating more opportunities for social interaction.
“We recommend the service develops more opportunities for positive social interaction for people from outside of their existing support network.” from the report
Goals were not clear
needs fixingAlthough people had regular meetings, their goals and targets were not clear during the inspection. The manager arranged reviews afterwards and new plans were put in place.
“Despite the range of meetings being held for people, goals and targets were not clear and people told us they did not feel they were being supported to progress and move on.” from the report
End of life wishes
minorThe home was not providing end of life care at the time, and people's wishes about end of life care and funerals had not been discussed. The report says this was addressed after the inspection through funeral plans.
“The service had not discussed people's end of life wishes or preferences for funeral arrangements.” from the report
- 01How do you currently help residents build positive relationships outside the home and avoid social isolation?
- 02How are each resident's goals recorded, reviewed and updated?
- 03What changes were made after the inspection to support residents' cultural food choices?
- 04How do you make sure relatives are kept informed about changes in care and progress?
- 05How are residents' end of life wishes and funeral preferences recorded and reviewed?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the care provided and the home itself; the report also checked whether improvements had been made since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 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 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe medicines and kind support, but serious staffing, training and management problems.
This was an unannounced routine inspection on 12 July 2018, followed by a second visit on 20 July. Inspectors looked at records for four people, spoke with three residents, two family members and staff, and checked how the home was run.
The home had no registered manager. Staffing was too low for some people's needs, especially when they needed support to go out. Recruitment checks, staff training, supervision, risk reviews and care records were not consistently completed or kept up to date.
There were also positive findings. The home was clean, medicines were managed safely, people were supported with healthcare and food, and people said staff treated them with respect. However, activities, keyworking and residents' meetings were limited or irregular.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Requires Improvement. The home breached regulations about staffing and staff support, recruitment, good governance, displaying ratings and notifying CQC about serious incidents. The provider sent a plan of action, and CQC said it would inspect again.
Medicines
Medicines were stored safely, records were correctly completed and weekly checks were carried out.
“People's medicines were safely managed.” from the report
Clean and safe building
The building was clean and there were regular checks on fire safety, room temperatures, gas, electricity and other hazards.
“The building was clean throughout and was clear of bad odours.” from the report
Healthcare support
People had detailed health information, attended routine appointments and had health concerns addressed promptly.
“People were supported to access healthcare services.” from the report
Food and nutrition
Nutritional needs were assessed, weights were checked and records showed people had a varied diet.
“The provider assessed people's nutritional needs and the risk of malnutrition or weight loss.” from the report
Respect and privacy
People told inspectors that staff treated them respectfully and protected their privacy and confidential information.
“People told us that staff protected their privacy.” from the report
Too few staff
seriousSome people could not go out when they wanted because there was only one staff member on duty and no additional staff available. This was a breach of the staffing regulation.
“Therefore people who required staff support to access the community were restricted from doing so because staffing levels were insufficient.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
seriousStaff lacked training in important areas for this service, including mental health and managing behaviour that may challenge. Most staff had received little or no regular supervision.
“Six care workers lacked training in mental health awareness despite this being a specialist service for people with mental health needs.” from the report
Out-of-date risk and care plans
seriousSome risk assessments had not been reviewed for many months, including after changes in mobility or repeated intoxication. Care plans also lacked clear goals and sometimes contained old information.
“Some had not been reviewed in seven months and had not been reviewed in response to incidents and changes in people's needs.” from the report
Weak management and oversight
seriousThere was no registered manager, and checks did not reliably identify or correct problems with records, recruitment, training, risks and care planning. This was a breach of the good governance regulation.
“There was a lack of similarly robust systems for checking staff recruitment and training was taking place.” from the report
Serious events not reported
seriousThe provider did not notify CQC about a serious injury or two incidents where people went missing and police were involved. This was a breach of the registration regulation.
“In June 2018 a person using the service sustained a serious injury, but the provider did not notify CQC of this as required by law.” from the report
Limited activities and involvement
needs fixingActivities, keyworking sessions and residents' meetings were not happening consistently. Plans did not clearly support people to build independence and move on from the home.
“Although logs were kept of people's activities these were quite limited and some activities included going shopping.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now been appointed, and how often is the manager present at the home?
- 02What staffing is available during the day for residents who need support to go out, attend appointments or take part in activities?
- 03Have all staff completed training in mental health, managing behaviour that may challenge, epilepsy, first aid, medicines and the Mental Capacity Act?
- 04How often are each person's care plans and risk assessments reviewed, and what happens when their needs or behaviour change?
- 05How are residents' meetings, keyworking sessions, activities and complaints now recorded and followed up?
This was a routine inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good in March 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 September 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 Colin Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 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 22 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 Lewisham
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 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”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.