CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 21b Upper Brighton Road
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were safe, with suitable staffing, managed risks, safe medicines and appropriate infection-control arrangements. The previous Safe rating was Good, but it was not reviewed in full.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this targeted visit. The report says the previous comprehensive-inspection rating was used.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this targeted visit. The report says the previous comprehensive-inspection rating was used.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This question was not inspected during this targeted visit. The report says the previous comprehensive-inspection rating was used.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, clear responsibilities and effective audits. The previous Well-led rating was Outstanding, but it was not reviewed in full.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Elysium Care Partnerships Limited - 21b Upper Brighton Road was inspected but not rated; inspectors found people safe and a well-managed home, while checking specific concerns.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 30 July 2021. Inspectors checked concerns about management, staffing, people's safety, best-interest decisions and medicine records. They also checked infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. They found suitable staffing, trained staff, safe medicine administration, up-to-date risk assessments and appropriate reporting of accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns.
The home was described as open, positive and person-centred. Records showed that best-interest decisions were properly considered, and audits and other quality checks were up to date.
The home was not given new ratings because this was a targeted inspection. Safe and Well-led were inspected but not rated. The last overall rating was Outstanding, published on 14 February 2019.
Medicines
Medicine records were complete and current. Medicines were administered safely, audited and stored and disposed of appropriately.
“Medicines were safely administered, regularly audited and appropriately stored and disposed of.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had induction, refresher training, supervision and appraisals.
“Staff induction and mandatory refresher training was based on the 15 standards of the Care Certificate.” from the report
Positive culture
Inspectors found the home friendly, open and person-centred. Relatives and health professionals gave positive feedback about the care and management.
“The culture of the home was open, positive, honest and person centred.” from the report
Quality checks
The home carried out regular checks covering care plans, risks, medicines, complaints, staff supervision and other areas.
“Audits were carried out by the registered manager and staff and were up to date.” from the report
Autism training
minorOne relative felt that more training would help staff understand a person's complex needs and specifically said autism training was needed. The report does not say this led to a breach.
“I do feel more training would be helpful to understand [Person using the service] complex needs.” from the report
- 01What autism training have staff completed, and how do you check that it helps them understand each young person's needs?
- 02How are best-interest decisions recorded, and how are relatives and health professionals involved?
- 03How do you check that medicine administration records remain complete and accurate?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when permanent staff are unavailable?
- 05How are accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns reviewed, and what changes have followed them?
This was a targeted inspection of specific parts of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 September 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.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Elysium Care Partnerships Limited - 21b Upper Brighton Road: targeted inspection found strong infection control, but the service was inspected and not rated.
The inspection took place on 10 February 2021. It was an announced, targeted inspection looking only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good measures for visitors, including a visiting pod, personal protective equipment, symptom checks and lateral flow tests. The home had enough protective equipment, and staff were observed using it according to government guidance.
The home was clean, with extra cleaning of high-risk areas. People’s coronavirus risks had been assessed, and staff supported people who were isolating to keep active and stay in contact with loved ones.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall rating or ratings for the wider quality of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to complete safety checks and take a lateral flow test. They were given protective equipment and taken to a dedicated visiting pod.
“Prior to seeing their loved one, visitors were required to undertake a lateral flow test and complete a symptom checker questionnaire.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was plenty of protective equipment for staff, visitors and young people. Staff checks helped the home replace supplies quickly.
“Staff audited PPE twice per day and a full stocktake was undertaken weekly, so supplies could be replenished quickly.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home very clean. Cleaning schedules had been increased, including extra cleaning of communal areas and frequently touched surfaces.
“The home was spotlessly clean when we visited.” from the report
Testing was not universal
minorNot all staff and young people had agreed to regular testing or could take part. The manager had a plan to reduce the risks and had sought advice, but this is an area to ask about.
“Not all of the staff and people who live in the home had consented to regular testing, or were able to participate in a regular testing programme.” from the report
- 01How do you currently manage the risks when staff or young people cannot take part in regular coronavirus testing?
- 02How often are protective equipment supplies checked now, and what happens if supplies run low?
- 03How are visiting arrangements and testing for visitors currently managed?
- 04What is the service’s latest rating for areas not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other quality questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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 21b Upper Brighton Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- September 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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 Kingston upon Thames
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. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“We cannot speak highly enough of the care that Angelique gave, and would recommend her to anyone else needing a live-in carer.”
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.