CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hall Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Hall Road is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, consent, premises and management systems.
The unannounced inspection took place on 28 June 2023. One inspector observed how people were supported, spoke with managers and support workers, reviewed care and other records, and received feedback from two relatives.
Inspectors found some good practice. Staff knew people well, there were enough staff, people received individual support, infection control arrangements were in place, and staff worked with health professionals. However, medicines were not always managed safely, some environmental risks were not dealt with properly, and the home needed repairs and redecoration.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not given a rating in this report. The provider breached four regulations and was asked to send an action plan.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and neglect. People received individual support through the day when required.
“People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them very well and understood how to protect them from abuse and neglect.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing numbers and skills matched people's needs. Staff were familiar with the people they supported.
“The number and skills of staff matched the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Health support
Staff worked with several health and care professionals and supported people to attend appointments.
“People received the healthcare support from a range of professionals including epilepsy specialists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, a reflexologist, a sports therapist, a nutritionists, a homeopath, an art and a music therapist.” from the report
Food and drink choices
Menus reflected people's dietary needs and preferences. Alternative meals and drink choices were available.
“An alternative choice of meal was available if people showed they did not like what was served.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousThe medicine cooler had stopped working and was not monitored. There was also a medicine stock discrepancy that staff could not explain.
“When we checked, it had stopped working and the temperature the medicines were stored at were one degree Celsius above the recommended temperature.” from the report
Consent and legal safeguards
seriousBest-interest decisions were not made with relevant people when people lacked capacity. Evidence was also missing about some deprivation of liberty safeguards.
“However, there were no meetings with relevant people such as healthcare professionals and relatives to decide what should be done in people's best interests when they lacked capacity.” from the report
Management and checks
seriousThere was no registered manager in post. Audits had not found and resolved important issues, and requested records were not provided on time.
“However, these audits had not identified and promptly resolved all the issues we found relating to the MCA, medicines management and the upkeep of the premises.” from the report
Family communication
minorOne relative said communication about appointments, outcomes and other issues needed to improve. Another said emails were not answered.
“A relative told us the provider did not communicate at all with them and emails were not responded to.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure medicines are stored at the correct temperature and stock records match?
- 02How are best-interest decisions made when someone cannot make a particular decision, and how are relatives and health professionals involved?
- 03What has been done to replace unsuitable window restrictors and review people's risk assessments?
- 04Which repairs and refurbishment have been completed, and what is the timetable for the remaining work?
- 05Has the manager applied to register with the CQC, and how are quality checks now identifying and fixing problems?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home and care provided; Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated, while Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 September 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, June 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements, but this was not a full assessment of the home.
This was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. The inspectors checked how the home managed visitors, testing, PPE, cleaning, social distancing and visits.
The inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infections. The home was clean and maintained, had enough PPE, and carried out infection control audits.
The overall service was inspected but not rated. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a current rating for the wider quality of care.
Family contact
People were supported to see family and friends. Technology was used to keep families updated when visits were not possible.
“People were supported to see their family and friends. If this was not possible staff were using technology to keep family members updated.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors had to meet several safety measures, including testing, vaccination evidence, hand sanitising and using new PPE.
“There were safe arrangements in place for professionals visiting the service.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and maintained, with regular checks on high-touch surfaces.
“The service was clean and maintained. There was regular monitoring completed by the registered manager to ensure staff were cleaning high touch surfaces.” from the report
Infection audits
The provider carried out regular infection control audits and followed up concerns when needed.
“The provider was completing regular infection control audits and concerns actions were followed up when required.” from the report
PPE and guidance
The home had enough PPE and notices reminding staff about guidance and handwashing.
“The provider had sufficient stock of appropriate PPE and there were designated notice boards available to remind staff about correct guidelines and handwashing techniques.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Which inspection date is correct, 14 January 2022 or 14 January 2021?
- 02How are visitors currently screened, tested or asked for vaccination evidence?
- 03How do you make sure there is enough appropriate PPE and that staff use it safely?
- 04How often are infection control audits completed, and how are concerns followed up?
- 05How are family visits and contact supported if an in-person visit is not possible?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the wider quality of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 June 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.
Every inspection of Hall Road
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 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 Sutton
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.