CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Martin House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, there were enough staff, and infection control systems were followed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff were trained and supported, and people received suitable food, drink and healthcare. The home had improved its approach to consent and best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not covered by this focused inspection. The report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and updated when people's needs changed. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, cultural needs and end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, suitable action after incidents and complaints, and a positive culture. Staff felt supported and the management team had a good overview of the home.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 and 20 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with people and staff, observed care, checked 16 care plans, reviewed medicines and records, and looked around the home.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with respect, received personalised care, had enough to eat and drink, and were supported to take part in activities.
The previous inspection had rated the home Requires Improvement and found breaches involving person-centred care, safe care and treatment, consent, and governance. At this inspection, inspectors found improvements and said the provider was no longer breaching those regulations.
This was a focused inspection. Caring was not inspected as part of this visit, and the overall rating used the previous rating for any key question not inspected.
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and recorded safely. Inspectors found no abnormalities in the records they checked.
“People received their medicines as prescribed, including Controlled Drugs and those supported with covert administration.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported independence where possible. Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences.
“People received personalised care which met their needs and reflected their preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could join group and individual activities, spend time with others and visit local shops and facilities if they wished.
“People had opportunities to take part in a range of organised group and individual activities.” from the report
Staff support
Staff received induction, training and regular meetings. Inspectors found staff had the skills and support needed for their roles.
“The staff felt supported and felt training was useful.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The management team used audits and reviews of incidents, complaints and accidents to identify problems and take action.
“The provider's audits identified when there were problems and action had been taken to address these.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment still developing
minorThe home was looking at ways to make the environment more interactive for people living with dementia. The report says sensory equipment and tactile wall coverings were being purchased.
“The provider was looking at ways to develop a more interactive environment for people living with dementia to help alleviate their distress and agitation.” from the report
End-of-life plans being developed
minorStaff provided personalised end-of-life care, but visiting nurses were still helping to create plans for situations where someone was dying or needed end-of-life care.
“Visiting nurses were helping to create plans to be followed in the event of someone dying or needing end of life care.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to create a more interactive environment for people living with dementia?
- 02Have the planned end-of-life care plans now been completed, and how are families involved in them?
- 03How are you checking that the improvements made after the previous inspection are being maintained?
- 04How do you monitor staffing levels and cover staff absences while using familiar staff?
- 05How are medicines incidents reviewed and used to prevent similar incidents happening again?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not inspected during this visit, and ratings for any key questions not inspected carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 October 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, July 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and a clean home, but identified risks in care planning, consent and oversight.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 19 and 20 May 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff were trained and supported, medicines were generally given as prescribed, the home was clean, and people could take part in activities.
However, risks were not always properly assessed or recorded. Some care plans did not explain people's personal preferences, communication needs or health risks. The home also did not always record best-interest decisions for restrictive practices. The overall rating of Requires Improvement means the service was not consistently meeting the expected standard, although inspectors found no evidence that people had been harmed.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors saw care delivered with patience, kindness and respect.
“We observed staff speaking with people with kindness, patience and respect.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and staff followed infection control procedures. PPE was available and used appropriately during the visit.
“The home was clean, tidy and was free of offensive odours on the days we visited.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People were offered activities in their rooms or communal areas. These included singing, dancing, quizzes, hand massages and online church services.
“People were supported to engage in a range of activities, either in their rooms or safely in a communal area.” from the report
Trained and supported staff
Staff had completed relevant training and received induction, supervision and performance reviews. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“Records showed staff had completed a range of training, such as moving and handling, dementia care, person-centred care and first aid.” from the report
Generally safe medicine systems
People received medicines as prescribed, and staff had medicine training and competency checks. Managers carried out regular medicine audits.
“The provider had systems in place to make sure people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousInformation about pressure-relieving mattresses and diabetes did not always explain the risks or what staff should do. Inspectors found this placed people at risk of harm.
“Risks to people's safety and well-being were not always assessed, monitored or managed.” from the report
Consent and bed rails
seriousWhere people lacked capacity to agree to bed rails, the required best-interest assessments were not in place. This breached the rules on consent.
“The service had not always assessed people's ability to consent to their care in a way that met the requirements of the MCA.” from the report
Care plans not personal enough
seriousSome plans did not record important personal care routines, communication needs or ways to support people whose behaviour others might find challenging. This could make it harder for new staff to provide the right care.
“The provider did not always make sure people received care and support in a planned way that recognised and reflected their individual needs and personal preferences.” from the report
Weak oversight and records
seriousAudits had identified some problems but had not ensured they were fixed quickly. Daily records did not always show that planned repositioning support had happened.
“Some people's care plans stated staff should support them to reposition regularly to help maintain their skin integrity, but daily care records did not always note that this support took place.” from the report
Hydration guidance
needs fixingSome plans for people at risk of dehydration did not state a daily fluid target or what staff should do if intake was low. Inspectors made a recommendation for the home to review this.
“We recommend the provider considers current guidance on promoting hydration for people in care homes and takes action to review practices accordingly.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans been updated to include each person's personal care routines, communication needs and preferences?
- 02How are risks linked to diabetes and pressure-relieving mattresses now assessed and explained to staff?
- 03How do you record best-interest decisions when bed rails or other restrictive practices are used?
- 04What checks now confirm that planned repositioning and other safety-related care have actually taken place?
- 05What daily fluid targets and actions are recorded for people at risk of dehydration?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the premises, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection since the current provider registered the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 July 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.
Every inspection of Martin House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 March 2020.
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 Ealing
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 £1,300 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.