CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 22a Bromley Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough suitably checked and trained staff, safe medicines systems and appropriate risk assessments.
- Effective?
- Good
- No separate rating for Effective is shown in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- No separate rating for Caring is shown, although inspectors observed kind and compassionate care and positive interactions between people and staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were generally met, with improved activities and communication support. Inspectors still found that long-term goals and skills teaching were not always clear.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks and care records had improved, but relatives and representatives were not always able to take part in care plan reviews.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found inconsistent leadership and further work was needed on care planning and daily living skills.
The home provides personal care for up to 10 people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. Ten people lived there at the inspection. One inspector visited on 24 June and 1 July 2022. The first visit was unannounced.
Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported to take part in activities. Staff knew people well, understood their needs and there were enough staff. The home had improved its activities, communication plans and care records since the previous inspection.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Responsive were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because relatives and representatives were not always able to contribute to care plan reviews, and records did not always show clear long-term goals or skills development.
The previous inspection, published in May 2019, rated the home Requires Improvement and found breaches of regulations. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach.
Kind and respectful care
People received compassionate care and staff respected their privacy, dignity, cultural needs and religious beliefs.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
There were enough staff to meet people's needs and support individual activities. Recruitment checks included references, right-to-work checks and DBS checks.
“The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
More activities
The home had widened its activities. People took part in cycling, cinema visits, social clubs, education courses, holidays and special events.
“People were now regularly attending leisure activities such as cycling, the cinema and attending social clubs.” from the report
Improved records and oversight
An electronic care record system had been introduced. Records were updated regularly, and the home carried out checks on medicines, finances, infection control and health and safety.
“An electronic care record system had been installed and we found records were updated regularly and reflected people's needs.” from the report
Long-term goals and skills
needs fixingThe home did not always have clear plans to help people with more complex needs acquire daily living skills. Progress reports did not always show the long-term goals being worked towards.
“The quality of these reports was variable, and it was not always evident what long-term goals people were being supported to achieve.” from the report
Family involvement in care reviews
needs fixingRelatives and representatives were not always able to contribute to care and support plan reviews. The provider took action after the inspection by sharing plans and asking for feedback.
“We haven't been to a review meeting in a long time” from the report
Medicines independence
minorMedicines were generally managed safely, but the home had not considered whether some people could manage some medicines themselves while remaining safe.
“The service had not considered whether some people could manage some of their medicines themselves.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe size of the home was not in line with best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors did not find evidence that this had harmed the quality of care.
“The size of the service was not in line with best practice guidance for services for people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people” from the report
- 01What specific long-term goals will you set with my relative, and how will you measure progress?
- 02How will you help my relative acquire or retain daily living skills, including if they have more complex needs?
- 03How and when will I be invited to care plan reviews, and how much notice will I receive?
- 04Have you assessed whether my relative can safely manage any of their own medicines?
- 05What further improvements are planned to the home environment, including the sensory garden?
This inspection rated Safe, Responsive and Well-led; no separate Effective or Caring rating is shown in the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection controls but incomplete vaccination records for visiting professionals.
This was a targeted inspection on 18 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and asked about staffing pressures. The visit was announced with 24 hours' notice.
Inspectors found good practice in visiting arrangements, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, new admissions and support for people self-isolating. They were assured that most infection control measures were in place.
The home did not always keep records of the COVID-19 vaccination status of visiting professionals. The provider was told about this and updated its procedure. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full quality rating.
Visiting arrangements
The home adapted its visiting arrangements as government guidance changed. Visitors were asked to test, use protective equipment and follow hand hygiene procedures.
“The provider had adapted the visitors' protocol as government guidelines changed.” from the report
COVID-19 testing and admissions
The home carried out regular testing and managed new admissions with testing before people began living there.
“New residents were given a COVID-19 test before being living at the service.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, supported by regular checks and audits.
“There were regular checks and audits of the service to ensure high standards of hygiene were maintained.” from the report
Incomplete vaccination records
needs fixingThe home did not always record the COVID-19 vaccination status of visiting professionals. The provider updated its procedure after inspectors raised this.
“We found the service did not have effective measures in place to make sure this requirement was being met as there were not always records kept of the vaccination status of visiting professionals.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and check the COVID-19 vaccination status of every visiting professional?
- 02How often are those records audited, and what happens if a record is missing?
- 03What measures are in place if COVID-19 creates staffing pressures?
- 04How do you support residents to keep using their local community safely during outbreaks or self-isolation?
- 05How are visiting relatives supported to follow testing, protective equipment and hand hygiene arrangements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, including staffing pressures during COVID-19; it was not a full assessment of all five key questions and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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 22a Bromley Road
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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 Lewisham
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 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.