CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Evelyn House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but weaknesses in risk records, staff training and management oversight.
This was the first inspection since the home registered in 2018. Inspectors visited on 3 March 2021 and spoke with people, staff, managers, relatives and a health and social care professional. They looked at care records, medicines, training, complaints, incidents, safeguarding and the building.
People were generally positive about staff. Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. The home helped people stay in contact with relatives and supported access to healthcare. However, some care records did not give staff enough guidance about risks, and one recently moved person did not have a detailed care plan.
Staff had not completed important training, including safeguarding, mental health, behaviours that can challenge and the Mental Capacity Act. There were also weaknesses in medicines competency checks, safeguarding records, meetings and quality monitoring. The home was rated Good for Caring and Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led.
The provider had started making changes by the time the report was written. These included moving information to a new care system, arranging training, holding a staff meeting, clarifying management responsibilities and improving some records. CQC said it would continue to monitor the home.
Kind relationships
People were generally positive about staff. Inspectors saw kind interactions, and relatives and a health professional also praised the care.
“People were positive, in general, regarding staff at the service and we saw kind interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Respect and independence
Staff supported people with dignity and encouraged them to do parts of their personal care and everyday tasks themselves.
“To promote independence, "I encourage people to do parts of their personal care for themselves.” from the report
Health support
Inspectors found that people received appropriate healthcare and that the home worked with health professionals.
“We were confident that people received appropriate access to health care and the service liaised effectively with health professionals.” from the report
Medicines storage and checks
Medicines were stored securely, stock matched records and the manager carried out medicines audits and daily stock checks.
“Medicines were stored securely. The service had an electronic medicines management system, and checks showed that stocks matched records.” from the report
Incomplete risk guidance
seriousSome risk assessments did not contain the information staff needed to support people safely. This included a recently moved person whose assessments had not transferred suitably.
“We found some gaps in risk assessments which meant staff were not always provided with guidance in how to safely support people.” from the report
Missing key staff training
seriousMost staff had not completed training in several important areas, including safeguarding, mental health, behaviours that can challenge and the Mental Capacity Act.
“The majority of staff had not undertaken training in mental health needs; safeguarding training; training in managing people with behaviours that can challenge or the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousManagement responsibilities were unclear. Meetings, fire drills, night-time audits and other quality checks were not always recorded or completed.
“We found there was a lack of clarity regarding the responsibility for undertaking management tasks.” from the report
Incomplete care plan
needs fixingOne person who had recently moved to the home did not have a detailed, accessible care plan showing their needs.
“Did not have a care plan set out showing their needs.” from the report
Medicines competency checks
needs fixingStaff had received medicines administration training, but their annual competency checks had not been completed. One as-needed medicine also lacked clear instructions for staff.
“Annual competency assessments had not been completed to check and ensure staff were appropriately skilled with the required knowledge to administer medicines safely.” from the report
Limited involvement in meetings
needs fixingTeam meetings and residents' meetings were not taking place regularly. This limited opportunities to discuss decisions and issues across the home.
“Team meetings were not regularly taking place; neither were meetings for residents.” from the report
- 01Have all residents' risk assessments and care plans now been completed, transferred and made easy for every member of staff to find?
- 02Have all staff completed training in safeguarding, mental health, behaviours that can challenge and the Mental Capacity Act?
- 03How often are staff medicines competency checks completed, and are the results recorded?
- 04How are fire drills, night-time checks, accidents and incidents now recorded and reviewed?
- 05How are residents and staff involved in regular meetings and decisions about the home?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the care home and covered all five CQC questions; the two people living in the supported living scheme at the back were not included. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 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 Evelyn House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 April 2018.
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.