CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Eleanor Palmer Trust Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but medicines were not always managed safely and oversight was not yet embedded.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection in November 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated with kindness and dignity. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, good support with food and healthcare, personalised care plans and daily activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Medicines were not always checked and recorded safely. Audits and new management systems were still being introduced and were not fully established.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. The provider was still in breach of Regulation 12 about safe care and treatment. Improvements had been made since the previous inspection, including resolving earlier concerns about safeguarding, staffing checks, training, consent, care planning and complaints.
Safeguarding
People were protected from abuse, and staff knew how to report concerns. The provider had improved enough to no longer be in breach of the earlier safeguarding regulation.
“People were protected from abuse, and there were policies and procedures in place to support staff in safeguarding people.” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks had improved, and people and relatives said call bells were answered in a timely way.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's individual needs and maintain their safety.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated gently and respectfully. Staff gave people time, protected their dignity and involved them in day-to-day decisions.
“People received good day to day care, and we observed they were treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Activities
People were supported to take part in activities every day. People who stayed in their rooms were offered individual activities and time with staff.
“People were supported to engage in activities every day.” from the report
Medicines records and checks
seriousMedicines were being given as prescribed, but stock records did not match the electronic medicines records. Audits were not robust enough, and some medical risk assessments were missing or out of date.
“Medicines were being administered as prescribed however stock records did not match with the electronic Medicine Administration Record (eMAR) system.” from the report
Management systems not embedded
needs fixingThe new manager had introduced clearer systems and monitoring, but these had not yet become established. Shortfalls in medicines management and auditing continued.
“Although the provider and registered manager had started to make changes since the previous inspection, these changes had not yet been fully embedded.” from the report
Some care plans needed more detail
minorCare planning had improved, but some plans did not give enough information to guide staff fully. Inspectors gave diabetic care plans as an example.
“However, we identified that some care plans could benefit from additional details to further support and guide staff.” from the report
- 01What checks are now being used to make sure medicines stock records match the electronic medicines records?
- 02How are medicines audits being strengthened so missed doses, recording problems and national guidance requirements are identified?
- 03What is the timetable for fully embedding the new management and quality-monitoring systems?
- 04How are missing or incomplete medical risk assessments, including diabetic care plans, being updated and reviewed?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering the five key questions, with particular attention to previous concerns, the Warning Notice and infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 January 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, November 2021
Eleanor Palmer Trust Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found serious gaps in medicines, safeguarding, staffing and management, and issued a warning notice.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 and 21 September 2021. Inspectors, including nursing and pharmacy advisers, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
People's basic needs were met, and people and relatives generally said they felt safe and were positive about the care. Inspectors also found good food, healthcare support, staff knowledge of people and some improvements to the building.
However, there were significant concerns. Medicines were not always managed safely. Safeguarding concerns were not always recorded, investigated or reported promptly. Some staff checks, training, supervision and support were missing. Some people were being deprived of their liberty without the required authorisations.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. This means the home was not consistently providing safe, effective, responsive or well-managed care. The caring question was not inspected at this visit, so its previous rating was carried forward.
People generally felt safe
People and relatives generally felt safe and were positive about the support they received.
“People and relatives told us they felt safe with the care and support they or their relative received.” from the report
Food and mealtimes
People had access to a balanced diet, choices of food and drinks, and support to eat and drink when needed.
“People had access to a balanced and healthy diet.” from the report
Healthcare support
Records showed that staff worked with health professionals and followed up healthcare referrals.
“People's care records confirmed staff worked in partnership with other health and care professionals including GP, speech and language therapist and tissue viability nurse.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Although staff training was incomplete, inspectors observed that staff understood people's individual needs.
“During the inspection we observed staff knew people well and understood their needs.” from the report
Some improvements to the building
The kitchen, bathrooms and carpet had been replaced, and equipment was in adequate condition.
“The kitchen, several bathrooms and the carpet had been replaced since the last inspection and equipment used within the service was found to be in adequate condition.” from the report
Safeguarding was not reliable
seriousAn incident involving risk of harm was not properly recorded or investigated. Some concerns were not reported to CQC promptly, and staff safeguarding training was incomplete.
“We found that CQC had not been notified and the service did not have an appropriate system in place to monitor safeguarding alerts, record actions taken, identify trends and any lessons learnt.” from the report
Medicine controls were weak
seriousCovert medicines did not have suitable instructions and records. Some staff had not been assessed recently, and storage and auditing problems were found.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed however, systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate medicines was effectively managed.” from the report
Liberty safeguards had expired
seriousSome authorisations to deprive people of their liberty had expired, and new applications had not been made. The report says this meant people were being deprived of their liberty unlawfully.
“This meant people were unlawfully being deprived of their liberty.” from the report
Staff training and support
needs fixingSome mandatory training had not been completed or refreshed. Staff also reported limited supervision, low morale and a need for further training.
“Staff were not receiving appropriate training and support to enable them to deliver safe and effective care to people.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousThe provider had not assured itself that all agency staff were safely recruited. Nine employed staff did not have DBS checks renewed within the provider's stated five-year timescale.
“Processes and checks were either not in place or comprehensively completed to ensure safe staff recruitment.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousImportant audits, resident and staff feedback, and an improvement plan were missing at the time of inspection. This meant problems were not being identified and followed through reliably.
“Management oversight of the service was ineffective and did not identify the issues we found on the inspection.” from the report
- 01Have all outstanding DoLS applications been submitted and authorised, and how do you now monitor expiry dates?
- 02How are covert medicines authorised, documented and checked, and have all medicine staff had recent competency assessments?
- 03Have all staff, including agency staff, completed safeguarding and other mandatory training, and are DBS checks now up to date?
- 04How often are staff supervised and appraised, and what are you doing to address the low morale reported at the inspection?
- 05What audits and feedback meetings are now in place for safeguarding, medicines, care records, complaints and activities?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; the Caring rating was not inspected at this visit and previous ratings for questions not inspected were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 2021 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 Eleanor Palmer Trust Home
9 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
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 14 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 Barnet
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 £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on life.”
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.