CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 3 Wray Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found the service was safe in relation to infection prevention and control. They were assured about PPE, testing, hygiene, visiting arrangements and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Caring?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Islington Social Services - 3 Wray Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe infection control during a recent COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 7 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and at whether staffing pressures affected people.
Inspectors found the home was safe. They were assured that visitors, staff and residents were protected through appropriate PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak arrangements.
A recent outbreak had been managed quickly. No one was infected at the time of the visit. Visiting had been paused temporarily on public health advice and was due to restart shortly.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not provide a new overall quality rating or ratings for all five areas of care.
Infection control
The home had arrangements covering visitors, PPE, testing, hygiene and social distancing. Inspectors were assured these measures were in place.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Managing the outbreak
The home responded quickly to a recent COVID-19 outbreak. No one was infected at the time of the inspection.
“A recent COVID-19 outbreak had occurred and the home quickly implemented safety measures to manage the situation.” from the report
Staffing cover
The home used familiar regular agency staff when employees had to self-isolate. Inspectors were told that all permanent staff had returned.
“The service used familiar regular staff from a staffing agency and this had helped to manage times when some staff had needed to self-isolate.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home kept visiting guidance up to date. A temporary pause in visits was due to end shortly after the inspection.
“The service provider had kept guidance up to date around visiting arrangements and other safety guidance throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you cover staffing if permanent staff need to self-isolate now?
- 02What arrangements are currently in place for family visits during an outbreak?
- 03How do you check that PPE, testing and hygiene procedures are followed every day?
- 04What would happen if there were another COVID-19 outbreak at the home?
- 05What is the home's current overall CQC rating, given that this inspection was not rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four key questions or provide an overall rating. 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.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some record-keeping and communication issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 October 2018. One inspector reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records, complaints, safety checks and quality monitoring. They also observed people and staff, spoke with staff and managers, and contacted relatives and professionals.
The home provides residential care and support for eight people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, safe medicines management, regular staff training and support, and care that promoted choice, independence and relationships. Staff understood people's communication needs and knew how to support them.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection in February 2016. The earlier issue about not having a registered manager had been resolved.
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and reflected people's individual needs, wishes, communication and cultural background. Staff could describe people's goals and support needs without relying only on written records.
“Staff we spoke with were proud that the national autistic society accreditation continued and acknowledged that this was not a reason to sit back and not strive to make more improvements.” from the report
Kind communication
Staff understood how each person communicated and were observed treating people with dignity and respect. Inspectors saw sensitive, attentive and caring interactions.
“The interactions we observed between staff and people living at the home were sensitive, attentive and caring.” from the report
Safety and safeguarding
Staff understood safeguarding procedures and people's individual risks. Risk assessments were tailored and had been reviewed recently.
“These assessments were tailored to each person. Risk assessments were being reviewed at regular intervals and all that we viewed had been updated recently.” from the report
Choice and relationships
People were supported to choose meals, take part in activities and maintain important relationships. One-to-one support was provided regularly, including support to visit family.
“The service gave a high priority to enable people to maintain relationships with important people in their lives and gave careful consideration about how this could best be achieved.” from the report
DoLS notifications
needs fixingThe home had not notified CQC about some recent approved DoLS decisions when it should have. The required notifications were supplied after inspectors raised the issue.
“The service had not notified CQC about recent approved decisions, which we clarified and the necessary notifications were subsequently supplied to CQC.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
minorA professional said that planned visits sometimes found staff or the person unavailable. The manager said the home would consider how to reduce possible anxiety and distress caused by this.
“Often I turn up for pre-arranged visits and find they are not expecting me or the person I am going to see is not there.” from the report
Family feedback
minorThe home's most recent direct survey had been in 2015, although an independent annual review also sought relatives' views and the home planned further questionnaires.
“We were informed by the registered manager that written feedback survey questionnaires were to be issued in November 2018, the most recent survey by the home had been in 2015.” from the report
- 01How are DoLS decisions and renewals recorded and notified to CQC now?
- 02How do you make sure planned visits by relatives, advocates and professionals happen as arranged?
- 03How do you check that all staff attend required training and receive any missed training promptly?
- 04When was the most recent family feedback survey, and what changes were made as a result?
- 05How will you support my relative's communication, cultural needs, activities and family relationships?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, using observations, records and discussions with staff, managers and professionals; some people could not give their views directly and no relatives replied to the inspector's email contact. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 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 3 Wray Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- 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 10 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 Islington
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. 74 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.