CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Homeleigh Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People received their medicines as prescribed, but some medicine instructions and guidance did not match the prescriptions. Inspectors found no direct evidence of harm, but said the errors could increase the risk of a medicines error.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained and supported, and people received support with food, drink, healthcare and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, supported to express their views and encouraged to be independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans reflected people's preferences, routines, relationships and goals. People were supported to communicate, take part in activities and maintain contact with people important to them.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager understood their responsibilities and had improved care plans and other systems. However, some medicine record errors had not been found by the home's audits, so further improvement was needed.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring and effective support, but medicines records and quality checks were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection. One inspector and a pharmacy inspector visited, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked care plans, medicine records, training records, incidents and audits.
People were supported by enough staff and were protected from abuse. Their care was personalised, respectful and focused on independence. Inspectors also found good support with food, healthcare, communication, activities and decision-making.
The main problems were inaccurate medicines records and checks that had not found these errors. The overall rating was Requires Improvement. The home had improved from Inadequate at the previous inspection and was no longer in special measures.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and observed people receiving prompt support. Recruitment checks were also completed before staff started.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure people were supported in a safe way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences, routines and goals. Staff followed these plans and reviewed them when people's needs changed.
“People had personalised support plans which detailed people's backgrounds, preferences, social connections, personalities, likes, dislikes, routines and goals.” from the report
Respect and independence
People's privacy and dignity were respected. They were encouraged to make choices and take part in daily tasks such as laundry, cleaning rooms and setting tables.
“People were encouraged to do things for themselves to promote their independence.” from the report
Good involvement
People and relatives were involved in care decisions and reviews. People also had a say in aspects of the home, including menu planning.
“People were involved in making decisions about their care and support and were supported in expressing their views.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome medicine administration instructions did not match prescriptions. Some guidance for medicines given when needed was inaccurate or related to another medicine.
“Records relating to the management of people's medicines were not always accurate.” from the report
Audits missed errors
needs fixingThe home's medicine audit did not identify the recording problems before the inspection. The manager corrected the errors after inspectors raised them, but further improvement was needed.
“This error had not been picked up during audit.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicine administration records match the prescriptions?
- 02How are instructions for medicines given when needed checked for accuracy?
- 03How often are medicine audits completed, and who reviews them?
- 04What evidence can you show that the improvements identified at this inspection have been maintained?
- 05How will you involve my relative and us in reviewing their personalised support plan?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the previous Inadequate rating, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, with particular follow-up on the earlier required improvements. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 October 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, August 2020
Homeleigh Residential Care Home remained Inadequate; a targeted inspection found some improvements, but risks and quality checks were still not managed properly.
This was a targeted inspection on 8 July 2020. Two inspectors spoke with managers and support workers, checked four care plans and other records, observed staff interactions, and spoke with two relatives afterwards.
Inspectors found that safeguarding procedures were being followed. People's rights, choices and inclusion were supported. Mental capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards requirements were also being followed.
However, risks were not always identified or covered by clear plans. Records about care and incidents were incomplete. The systems for checking and improving quality were still not effective, so the home remained in breach of Regulations 12 and 17.
This visit was targeted and did not provide new ratings for the key questions. The previous overall rating remained Inadequate. The previous ratings were Inadequate for Safe and Well-led, and Requires Improvement for Effective.
Safeguarding improved
The manager understood safeguarding duties, reported a recent allegation and followed the relevant procedure. The earlier breach about safeguarding had been met.
“The breach of Regulation 13 had been met.” from the report
People were included
Inspectors found that people were supported to spend time with others and were not unnecessarily restricted.
“People's right to integration and inclusion was promoted.” from the report
Legal rights were followed
Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were completed where needed. Consent records and valid Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations were seen.
“At this inspection we found that the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were followed.” from the report
Important risks were missed
seriousThere was no suitable guidance about recognising high or low blood sugar for one person. There was also no risk assessment or staff guidance for someone using the community who might go missing.
“Risks to people were not always identified and comprehensive plans developed to ensure people were protected from avoidable harm.” from the report
Care records were not reliably checked
seriousRecords did not always contain the information staff needed, including the number of staff needed for a safe transfer. Audits had not picked up this error.
“care records were not always audited to ensure they were accurate and reflected the care and support people required.” from the report
Incidents and support were not always recorded
seriousStaff did not always record concerns about people or the support given. The manager's quality checks had not identified the missing records.
“This showed that records were not always accurately maintained relating to incidents and care and support people received.” from the report
- 01What current risk assessments and staff instructions are in place for recognising and responding to high or low blood sugar?
- 02How do you manage the risk of someone going missing while using the local community, and what would staff do if they did not return?
- 03How are care records now audited, and how do you check that moving and handling plans contain the correct staffing instructions?
- 04How do staff record concerns, incidents and support provided, and who checks that these records are complete?
- 05What actions have you taken in response to the Regulation 12 and Regulation 17 breaches, and what evidence can you show that they are working?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns linked to Warning Notices about Safe, Effective and Well-led; it did not assess the full key questions, and Caring and Responsive were not reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 August 2020 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 Homeleigh Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- October 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Homeleigh Residential Care Home →
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Homeleigh Residential Care Home →
- January 2020Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 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 Greenwich
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 £1,250 a week. 87 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”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.