CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Homemead
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were regularly assessed and managed, staffing levels matched the rota, and medicines were administered and recorded safely. Inspectors also found effective infection prevention measures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open and positive management, clear responsibilities, thorough audits and good communication with people, relatives, staff and health professionals.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Homemead rated Good; inspectors found safe care and strong management, but there was no registered manager in post at the time.
The inspection took place on 12 and 19 April 2023. The first day was unannounced. One inspector reviewed records and spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, regular risk reviews, suitable infection control and systems for learning from accidents, incidents and complaints.
The inspection did not assess Effective, Caring or Responsive. Their previous ratings were carried forward to calculate the overall Good rating. The previous overall rating was also Good, published in November 2018.
Risk management
Care plans and risk assessments were detailed, up to date and reviewed when people's needs changed. Staff understood how to manage risks while allowing people to make choices.
“Staff followed people's risk assessments enabling people to take acceptable risks and enjoy their lives safely.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment included checks, references and a probation period.
“During the inspection, staffing levels matched the rota meaning people's needs were safely met.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and audited safely. The medicine records inspected had no recording errors or omissions.
“People's medicine records were kept up to date with no recording errors or omissions found on any of the MAR sheets we looked at.” from the report
Positive management
The home had clear responsibilities, regular audits and systems to monitor quality. People, relatives, staff and health professionals gave positive feedback about how it was run.
“The audits carried out were thorough, and regularly reviewed by the provider, registered manager, and staff.” from the report
Infection control
The home used protective equipment safely and had an up-to-date infection control policy. Inspectors saw that the environment was clean and hygienic.
“We were assured that the care home was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
No registered manager in post
minorThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. An application for a new registered manager was being processed.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home while the registered manager application is being processed?
- 02What is the expected timescale for the new registered manager application to be completed?
- 03How will you make sure care remains effective, caring and responsive, given these areas were not assessed in this inspection?
- 04How are people's risk assessments reviewed when their needs, interests or activities change?
- 05How do you check that medicines continue to be recorded accurately and administered by trained staff?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls during an outbreak.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 21 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
The home had strong arrangements to reduce infection risks. Staff used protective equipment properly, received regular training, and had enough supplies. The home was clean, with detailed cleaning records and extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
The home was experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak, so access was restricted and new admissions or returns from hospital were paused. Essential care givers and people visiting at the end of life could still visit under the home's infection control rules. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Strong infection controls
Inspectors found robust arrangements to prevent and limit the spread of COVID-19.
“The home had robust and effective measures to prevent and minimise the risk to people, staff and those that visited from catching or spreading COVID-19.” from the report
PPE and staff training
Staff and managers used PPE correctly. Training was current and refreshed regularly, with enough PPE available.
“Staff received up to date infection prevention and control (IPC) and COVID-19 training, that was routinely refreshed.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and kept detailed records of cleaning, including repeated cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The home was hygienic, clean and records were kept, in detail, of staff cleaning schedules.” from the report
Support for contact with relatives
Although visits were restricted during the outbreak, the home supported essential visits and helped people keep in touch by phone and video calls.
“Alternative communication arrangements were made so people could maintain relationships with relatives and friends.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans for outbreaks and staff shortages. It also carried out regular testing of people living, working and visiting there.
“The care home adopted a 'whole home' COVID-19 testing program.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently arranged for essential care givers and people receiving end-of-life care?
- 02What happens if a new resident needs to move in or a resident returns from hospital during an outbreak?
- 03How will you help my relative keep in touch with family if visits have to be restricted?
- 04How often are staff trained and checked on PPE use and infection prevention?
- 05What measures are in place to manage staffing pressures during a COVID-19 outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other quality areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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 Homemead
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
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 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.