CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 78 Park Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely and infection controls were in place. Inspectors found that some risk assessments did not clearly highlight key risks, and some staff were unsure which outside agencies to contact about safeguarding concerns.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received relevant training and people were supported to access health professionals, eat and drink well and live in a suitable environment. Some staff were not always clear about the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, but the manager arranged a briefing after the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to express their views, make choices and develop independence, although some relatives raised concerns about cultural differences affecting understanding of people's needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised, and communication profiles explained how people should be supported. The home offered community activities, but relatives said activity levels had been slow to return after the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management was described as approachable and responsive. Audits, feedback and partnership working were used to improve care, and the home submitted required notifications to the CQC.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Elysium Care Partnerships Limited - 78 Park Road is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and staff knowledge needing improvement.
Inspectors visited on 10 October 2022 and reviewed care and medicines records, policies, incident records and quality checks. They observed care, spoke with managers and care workers, and received feedback from relatives and health professionals.
The home supported up to seven younger people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices. Staff understood people's needs, and the home provided personalised care, activities and support from health professionals.
There were some areas to improve. Some risk assessments did not clearly highlight key risks, some staff were unsure about safeguarding agencies and the Mental Capacity Act, and activities had been slow to return after the COVID-19 pandemic.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good. The overall rating was lower than the Outstanding rating published in 2019 under the previous provider. Responsive and well-led changed from Outstanding to Good.
Safe medicines support
People received medicines when needed. The home followed STOMP principles, and a medication review had reduced one person's psychotropic medicines and improved their quality of life.
“The provider worked within the STOMP principles.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's needs, preferences, communication methods and routines in detail. Staff supported people with daily living skills and personal choices.
“People's care was personalised to meet their needs and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found people were treated well and relatives were positive about the care. Staff supported privacy, dignity, communication and independence.
“Staff are warm, empathic and support the residents well.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with health professionals and advocacy organisations. People received support from services including psychiatrists, GPs and dental care.
“People were referred to other healthcare agencies in a timely manner.” from the report
Approachable management
Relatives, staff and health professionals spoke positively about management. The home used audits, surveys and meetings to review care and make improvements.
“Regular audits of service delivery were carried out to review any actions to drive service improvement.” from the report
Risk information was not always clear
needs fixingSome risk assessments contained a lot of information, which meant important risk controls were not always easy to identify. The manager said the paperwork format would be reviewed.
“some key areas of risk management were not always highlighted as clearly as they could be.” from the report
Safeguarding knowledge
needs fixingSome staff were not clear about which outside agencies they could contact to report safeguarding concerns. A staff briefing was arranged after the inspection.
“Some of the staff we spoke with were not clear on the external agencies they were able to report safeguarding concerns to.” from the report
Mental capacity knowledge
needs fixingStaff understood the importance of consent but were not always clear about the Mental Capacity Act. The manager arranged a briefing to refresh their knowledge.
“Staff were not always clear on the principles of the MCA, although they understood the importance of consent.” from the report
Activities had not fully returned
minorThe home offered activities and community trips, but relatives said activity engagement was lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.
“some activity engagement had been slow to return.” from the report
- 01How have you changed the format of risk assessments so important risks and staff actions are easier to find?
- 02What safeguarding refresher training have staff completed, and do they know which outside agencies to contact?
- 03How do you check that staff understand the Mental Capacity Act and use the least restrictive options?
- 04What activities and community visits are currently available, and how do you make sure each person has enough opportunities to take part?
- 05What progress has been made on providing additional night staff?
This inspection considered all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control; the report says the previous comprehensive inspection report is available separately. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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, February 2019
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found safe, effective and kind care, with exceptional personalised support and leadership.
Inspectors visited the home on 10 and 11 December 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living there, staff, relatives and outside professionals. They also observed care, checked care and medicines records, reviewed staff files and looked around the building.
The home supported seven adults, including people with learning disabilities or autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, received effective care and were treated with kindness and respect. Medicines, staffing, risk assessments, infection control and staff training were all managed well.
Responsive care and leadership were rated Outstanding. People had highly personalised support, meaningful activities and help to make choices and take part in community life. The overall rating remained Outstanding, as it had been at the previous inspection in February 2016.
Personalised support
Support plans reflected each person's needs, preferences, communication style and goals. Staff adapted care carefully and reviewed plans regularly.
“People continued to receive exceptionally personalised care that was innovative and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities, work and community opportunities. Staff adapted their schedules to support people's preferred lifestyles.
“Since the previous inspection people had continued to enjoy an excellent and varied range of opportunities, including swimming, bowling, massage, sport events, shopping, trips to central London, college classes, horse-riding, trampolining, cycling and holidays.” from the report
Respectful relationships
Inspectors saw calm, positive relationships. Staff supported privacy, dignity and communication in ways suited to each person.
“The relationships between staff and people receiving support demonstrated dignity and respect at all times.” from the report
Strong leadership
Managers promoted an open and inclusive culture and used audits, feedback and outside expertise to improve the home.
“The service was exceptional in how it promoted a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering.” from the report
Good safety arrangements
Risk assessments, medicines records, staffing and recruitment checks were well managed. Staff understood safeguarding and positive behaviour support.
“People's medicines were well managed so that they received them safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you tailor communication and daily support to my relative's specific needs, including pictures, signs, gestures or easy-read information?
- 02What activities, work or community opportunities could my relative take part in, and how would you support their own choices?
- 03How are behaviour support plans reviewed, and how do you make sure restrictive practices or medication are not used unnecessarily?
- 04How will you keep me updated about my relative's care, activities, health and any changes in their routine?
- 05How are people living in the home and their families involved in quality checks, care reviews and staff recruitment?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; the report says the ratings remained unchanged from February 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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.
Every inspection of 78 Park Road
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Outstandingstayed OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- June 2016OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 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 Richmond 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 £1,270 a week. 78 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.