CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Coombe Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were trained, risks were assessed, medicines were checked and there were enough staff to support people safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed and reviewed. Staff had training and supervision, and people were supported with eating, healthcare and mental capacity decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and caring and respected people's dignity, privacy and choices. People were supported to make decisions about personal care, clothing, food and activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and communication needs were recorded and supported with visual and pictorial prompts. People were helped to maintain family and social relationships and take part in activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open, person-centred culture. Managers gathered feedback, checked care quality, used action plans and supported staff learning.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Coombe Road rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas.
Inspectors visited on 21 and 28 September 2022. They spoke with people, staff and the registered manager. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records and quality checks. They also observed care and the home environment.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people had choice and control, and were supported to take part in activities and maintain relationships. Staff understood people's individual communication, preferences and risks.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of this inspection. The previous inspection, published in January 2018, also rated the home Good.
Choice and independence
People were supported to choose their care, activities, food, clothing and how they spent their time. Staff also helped people take part in household tasks as independently as possible.
“People were supported to have choice and control over their lives. People were active and chose the activities they engaged in.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and understood how they communicated. Inspectors saw people appearing comfortable with staff, who respected privacy, dignity and personal preferences.
“People received their care and support from kind and caring staff.” from the report
Safe support
Risks were assessed and staff followed guidance to reduce avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, fire safety and infection control were all checked and found to be safe.
“People received their medicines safely. Staff received regular medicines administration training.” from the report
Good oversight
Managers and provider teams carried out checks on care and developed action plans. Feedback from people and relatives was used to make improvements.
“The registered manager routinely checked the quality of care and support people received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and record my relative's communication needs if they do not use verbal communication?
- 02How will you manage my relative's specific health risks, including any eating, swallowing or epilepsy needs?
- 03How often will my relative's medicines be reviewed, and how will you check that the medicines are helping them?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available that match my relative's interests?
- 05How would you support my relative and family if end of life care became needed?
This inspection looked at all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, and involved observations, discussions, records and medicines checks; the provider was not asked to complete a Provider Information Return. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with limited access to upper floors for people using wheelchairs.
Inspectors visited on 15 and 17 November 2017 without announcing the visits. They spoke with people, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, audits, safety checks and infection control practices.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and good emergency arrangements. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and access healthcare.
People described staff as kind and supportive. Care was adapted to people's communication needs, preferences, relationships, cultural needs and chosen activities. The report says the overall Good rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection in October 2015.
Staffing and safety
The report found enough staff during the day and overnight. Recruitment checks, risk assessments and emergency plans were also in place.
“There were enough staff available throughout the day and overnight to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind relationships
People knew staff well and inspectors saw warm, encouraging interactions. Staff also supported people's emotional needs and dignity.
“People and staff shared positive relationships. People knew staff well and we observed caring and encouraging interactions.” from the report
Personalised activities
People chose activities both in the home and in the community. Staff supported individual interests such as crafts, music, eating out and social clubs.
“People participated in activities of their choosing both inside the home and within the community.” from the report
Good oversight
The registered manager and provider used audits to monitor care, medicines, training, safety and incidents.
“The registered manager and provider undertook regular audits of the service to ensure people received good quality care.” from the report
Limited upper-floor access
minorThere was no lift. People with physical disabilities could only use the ground-floor facilities, so families should check whether the layout meets their relative's needs.
“The service did not have a lift. This meant people with physical disabilities could only access the facilities on the ground floor.” from the report
- 01If my relative uses a wheelchair, which bedroom, bathroom and communal areas could they use given that there is no lift?
- 02How would staff support my relative during an emergency evacuation, and when was their evacuation plan last practised?
- 03How would staff communicate with my relative if they do not use speech or become anxious?
- 04Which activities and community opportunities would be available to my relative, and how would their preferences be recorded?
- 05How would my relative and our family be involved in creating an easy-read end of life plan if one became needed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the whole service, including care, accommodation, safety and management, and all five ratings were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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 Coombe Road
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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.