CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Devonshire Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and known risks. Medicines were generally managed safely, but some medicine protocols and audits needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable support with food, health care, training and their daily needs. Inspectors found weak oversight of one person's fluid intake and recommended improvements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not separately rated in this focused inspection. Inspectors observed kindness and compassion, and people and relatives spoke positively about the care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people were supported with choices, activities, relationships and communication. One person had fewer opportunities to go out than others, and the manager agreed to review this.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had quality checks and a positive, family-style culture, but management oversight was inconsistent. Inspectors found gaps in medicines audits, hydration monitoring and understanding of the relevant guidance.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but management oversight needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 30 June 2022. One inspector met the five people living in the home, spoke with four of them, observed daily care and activities, and spoke with relatives, staff and a health professional. Records about care, risks, medicines, staffing and quality checks were also reviewed.
People were described as safe and well cared for. Staff knew people's needs, communication styles and preferences. People were supported with health appointments, activities, relationships, meals and personal care. Relatives and people living in the home gave positive feedback about the care.
The main weaknesses were in management oversight. Medicines audits did not always identify problems, hydration monitoring was not strong enough, and the registered manager was not familiar with the Right support, right care, right culture guidance. Inspectors made three recommendations, but found no breach of regulations.
The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection published in April 2018. Safe, Effective and Responsive were rated Good. Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Caring was not separately rated in this focused inspection.
Kind and familiar staff
Staff knew people well and had built close relationships with them. People and relatives said they felt safe and well treated.
“Staff had formed close relationships with people they supported.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, likes and dislikes. Staff supported people to make choices and follow their interests.
“People had personalised care plans which addressed their holistic needs.” from the report
Good health support
Staff supported people to attend health appointments and sought medical advice when someone became unwell.
“The service supported people with healthcare appointments.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to go out, take holidays, enjoy activities and maintain family relationships.
“People told us they enjoyed going out to local places for shopping, exercise class, walks and meals out in the pub.” from the report
Safe staffing
The home had a stable staff team. Staffing could change to support planned activities and individual needs.
“The service provided a stable staff team to support people's needs and lifestyle preferences.” from the report
Medicine checks
needs fixingSome as-needed medicine protocols did not give staff enough information. Audits did not identify all the problems inspectors found.
“Protocols for medicines that were prescribed to be used as and when required (known as PRN medicines) were not completed in detail” from the report
Fluid intake monitoring
needs fixingOne person had low fluid intake, but there was no clear daily total or recorded plan for recognising dehydration and seeking medical advice.
“There was insufficient management oversight of this as nobody was designated to keep a daily total of the amount of fluid the person drank, identify any signs of dehydration or under what circumstances to seek medical advice.” from the report
Unequal activity opportunities
minorRecords showed that one person went out less often than others. The manager said they would review this person's leisure opportunities.
“One person was not given the same amount of opportunities as others to go out and do their preferred activities.” from the report
Guidance not understood
needs fixingThe registered manager was not familiar with the Right support, right care, right culture guidance, and staff had not been briefed on it.
“The registered manager was not aware of the 'Right support, right care, right culture' guidance” from the report
- 01How do you now check that as-needed medicine protocols contain enough information for staff?
- 02Who records each person's daily fluid intake, and what happens if someone is not drinking enough?
- 03What changes have been made to make sure each person has equal opportunities to go out and follow their preferred activities?
- 04How have staff been trained and briefed on the Right support, right care, right culture guidance?
- 05What evidence can you show that the three recommendations from this inspection have been completed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not separately rated, and the overall rating used the previous rating for any key question not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 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, April 2018
Devonshire Road rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support with no serious risks or concerns.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 5 March 2018. The inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They also observed care and checked care records, staff records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and mental health needs. Inspectors found people were happy and settled. Care plans included detailed information about risks, communication, health needs, preferences and goals. Medicines were managed safely, staffing was adjusted to people's needs and staff were properly recruited and trained.
People were supported to make choices, stay as independent as possible, eat well, attend activities and use health services. Inspectors found kind relationships between people and staff, and said the home had suitable systems for handling complaints and checking the quality of care.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection on 5 October 2015, so the rating remained unchanged.
Detailed risk planning
Care plans identified individual risks and gave staff clear instructions to reduce them and keep people safe.
“Care plans contained clear and specific risk assessments with guidelines for staff on how to support people so as to reduce or mitigate each identified risk in order to keep people safe from harm.” from the report
Kind relationships
People appeared settled and happy. Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff, based on respect and understanding.
“We observed positive interactions between people and care staff which were based on mutual respect and understanding.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's lives, health needs, communication, preferences and interests. Staff used this information to respond to people as individuals.
“Care plans were person centred and gave care staff detailed information about the person, their life, their specific health and social care needs, their likes and dislikes” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to cook, shop, clean, do their laundry and take part in activities and outings where possible.
“Promoting and enabling people's independence was a key part of the service ethos to ensure that people were supported to live independent and meaningful lives.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines records complete and found that medicines were given as prescribed. Staff had medicine training and competency checks.
“Records had been completed in full with no gaps or omissions in recording.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will staffing levels be adjusted to meet my relative's needs, especially when they want to go out into the community?
- 02How will my relative's care plan, communication needs and personal goals be reviewed and updated?
- 03What activities and outings are available, and how will my relative's choices and interests shape them?
- 04How will you support my relative with medicines, healthcare appointments and any specific health risks?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviews and raising any concerns or complaints?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, and the overall Good rating remained unchanged from 5 October 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 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 Devonshire Road
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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 Enfield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.