CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Felstead Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and controlling infections. This included visitor checks, PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and arrangements for managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 31 March 2021. Inspectors checked how the home prevented and controlled infections during the coronavirus pandemic.
The home was clean and well maintained. Visitors had temperature checks, completed a declaration form and were given personal protective equipment. People and staff were tested for COVID-19 in line with national guidance.
Staff had regular infection-control and personal protective equipment training. Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, admissions, shielding, social distancing, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks safely.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other care questions.
Clean premises and PPE
The premises were clean and maintained, with hand sanitiser and PPE available at the entrance.
“Hand sanitiser and personal protective equipment (PPE) were available at the entrance of the home.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
The home had arrangements for regular COVID-19 testing and for preventing or managing infection outbreaks.
“The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for COVID-19 and was following government guidance on testing.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received regular training in infection control and the safe use of PPE.
“All staff had received regular training on infection control and the use of PPE.” from the report
Family contact
People could stay in touch with family and friends by phone, video messaging and visits, including visits from a nominated individual.
“Each person living at the service had a nominated individual who could visit them.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are the infection-control, testing and PPE arrangements described in this report still in place?
- 02How are visitors currently screened and supported to follow infection-control guidance?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested when there is a suspected or confirmed infection?
- 04What training do staff currently receive on infection control and PPE?
- 05How can family visits, phone calls and video calls be arranged, and who can act as a nominated visitor?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end-of-life planning and some monitoring still needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 7 February 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and checked care files, medicines records, staff records, audits and other documents.
The home supported 22 people at the time, with places for 24 people who had mental health needs. Inspectors found good arrangements for safeguarding, risk management, recruitment, medicines, staff training, food, healthcare and the home environment.
People described staff as caring and said they felt safe. Care plans reflected people's needs, choices, cultural and religious needs, sexual orientation and interests. People could join activities, attend house meetings and make complaints.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good. Inspectors recommended that the home involve people in decisions about their end-of-life care. They also identified missed checks on a defibrillator, overdue staff appraisals and a missed annual survey.
Skilled and supported staff
Staff received induction, training and regular supervision. Inspectors found staff understood the needs of the people they supported.
“Staff were trained and supported to have the right skills, knowledge and qualifications necessary to give people the right support.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring. Inspectors found that staff respected privacy, dignity, personal choices and independence.
“People's privacy and dignity was respected. Staff we spoke with gave examples how they respect people's privacy.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Support plans covered people's individual needs and preferences. People could take part in activities inside and outside the home and contribute to weekly house meetings.
“The support plans were person centred.” from the report
Complaints were handled
The home displayed its complaints process and had records showing that complaints were investigated and resolved in a timely way.
“We found the complaints were investigated appropriately and the service had provided resolutions in a timely manner.” from the report
End-of-life wishes not explored
needs fixingThe home had an end-of-life policy and template, but had not discussed people's wishes for end-of-life care. Inspectors made a recommendation for the home to seek advice and guidance.
“The provider had not explored people's wishes for end of life care.” from the report
Defibrillator checks
needs fixingInspectors found that regular checks were not being carried out to confirm the defibrillator was working properly. The manager said regular checks would begin.
“However we noted the service was not doing regular checks to see if it was in good working order.” from the report
Staff appraisals overdue
minorAnnual appraisals had last been completed in December 2016, so 2017 appraisals were overdue. The manager had begun booking appointments with staff.
“We spoke to the manager about staff not receiving annual appraisals for 2017.” from the report
Annual survey delayed
minorThe last annual survey was completed in December 2016. No survey had been completed in 2017, although the manager said the next one would be sent out by the end of the month.
“However the last annual survey was conducted in December 2016.” from the report
- 01How are people's wishes about end-of-life care now discussed and recorded?
- 02How often is the defibrillator checked, and where are those checks recorded?
- 03Have all staff now received their annual appraisals?
- 04How do you gather and act on people's and relatives' views now that the annual survey was delayed?
- 05Who is currently managing the home, and what support is in place while the registered manager is away?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home; it followed a focused inspection on Safe and Effective in December 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 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 Felstead Street
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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 Hackney
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. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
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.