CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 51 Leonard Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, risks and incidents were managed, and medicines were administered and recorded safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and goals. People received suitable food, activities, healthcare and support from trained staff.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and families described kind and compassionate care. Staff respected privacy, dignity, choices and family relationships, although some wording in written records was not respectful.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and adapted to people's routines, communication needs, culture and changing preferences. Inspectors recommended further work to make the environment less institutional.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible and approachable, and governance had improved. Inspectors said quality checks were still mainly focused on the building and records rather than observing people's quality of life.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Homewards Limited - 51 Leonard Road is rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and major improvements since the previous Inadequate rating.
This was a comprehensive inspection following serious concerns found in 2019. Inspectors visited on 25 August and 2 September 2021, spoke with people, families, staff and professionals, and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safer care planning, good medicines systems and better learning from incidents.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent and keep in touch with family and friends. Care was described as kind and respectful, with activities based on people's interests and needs.
The home had previously been rated Inadequate and placed in Special Measures. Inspectors found enough improvement for it to leave Special Measures, and said it was no longer breaching regulations.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, take positive risks and build everyday living skills. Their care focused on their goals and quality of life.
“The model of care and setting maximised people's choice, control and independence.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people calmly and respectfully. People and families reported kind and compassionate care.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who respected their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Improved safety
Safety systems, staffing, recruitment, risk management and incident learning had improved since the previous inspection.
“People were protected from abuse and poor care. The service had enough appropriately skilled staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Personalised communication
The home used communication passports and visual information to help staff understand people's needs and preferences.
“Each person had an individualised communication passport which offered practical guidance on communicating with them.” from the report
Open leadership
Managers were visible and worked with families, staff and professionals to improve the service. Families said communication had become more positive.
“The leadership had worked hard to create an open culture where feedback and learning was encouraged.” from the report
Some care plan wording
needs fixingSome written descriptions of people's behaviour were not dignified. Managers said the wording did not reflect how people were treated and planned to address it.
“A person was described as 'aggressive' and another as having 'bad behaviour' in their care plans.” from the report
Quality checks
minorFormal checks focused mainly on the building and records. Inspectors asked the provider to include more checks on staff interactions and people's quality of life.
“Formal quality checks were largely around the physical environment and records.” from the report
PPE issue
minorInspectors saw one incorrect mask being worn. The provider corrected this immediately.
“We were somewhat assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to keep care plans respectful, and how are these records checked now?
- 02What further changes have been made to make shared areas and bedrooms more personalised and less institutional?
- 03How do managers check the quality of staff interactions and people's quality of life, not just the building and records?
- 04How do you make sure staff follow current PPE and infection prevention guidance?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing care plans, risks, activities and health decisions?
This was a comprehensive follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, after an earlier Inadequate rating and later targeted inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 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, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; the previous rating was Inadequate, but inspectors found enough staff and no evidence of harm from the concerns checked.
This was a targeted inspection on 9 September 2020. Inspectors followed up concerns about staffing, risk management, safeguarding, and accident and incident reporting. They also checked infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, reviewed risk assessments, and systems for reporting incidents and safeguarding concerns. They found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concerns checked.
The home was clean and staff had enough protective equipment. Relatives and staff spoke positively about management. The service was inspected but not rated, so the previous Inadequate ratings for Safe and Well-led were not changed.
Staffing
Inspectors found that staffing had improved and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff absences were covered by regular agency staff.
“At this inspection we found this had improved and there were enough staff.” from the report
Risk management
People had risk assessments covering several possible risks, and these were regularly reviewed. Staff could explain how they reduced risks and managed behaviour that might challenge.
“People had risk assessments to reduce the risks of harm they may face and these were regularly reviewed.” from the report
Infection control
The premises were clean, staff had protective equipment, and the home had infection control guidance and cleaning arrangements.
“The premises were clean and free from malodour. There was a cleaning schedule in place.” from the report
Management checks
Inspectors saw regular checks, including infection control audits. Staff and relatives described management as approachable and open.
“Regular checks were carried out. For example, we reviewed infection control audits carried out in July, August and September which included checks on the cleaning and saw no concerns were identified.” from the report
No new rating
minorThe inspection did not review the full Safe or Well-led questions. The previous Inadequate ratings therefore remained unchanged, so this report cannot confirm that the wider problems had been resolved.
“We have not changed the rating of this key question, as we only looked at the part of the key question we have specific concerns about.” from the report
- 01What actions have been taken since the previous Inadequate rating, and which issues are still being worked on?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when regular staff are absent?
- 03How often are each person's risk assessments reviewed, and how are changes shared with staff?
- 04How are accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns recorded and reported to the relevant authorities?
- 05When is the next comprehensive inspection expected, and which parts of the service will it assess?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns under Safe and Well-led, plus infection control; it did not review the full key questions or provide new ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 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 51 Leonard Road
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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 Waltham Forest
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 £1,200 a week. 77 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.”
“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.