Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Mosaic House

Goodpublished 6 February 2020, 6 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and staffing, medicines, infection control and risk management were found to be suitable. Inspectors noted that some staff needed prompting about reporting safeguarding concerns to the local authority, and the fire risk assessment needed improvement.
Effective?
Good
People had personalised assessments and support plans, and staff had suitable training and support. Some weight records were inaccurate because two different measurements were used, but the manager said this was corrected promptly.
Caring?
Good
People said staff were kind and treated them well. Staff respected privacy, dignity, equality and people's choices, and supported people to build independence.
Responsive?
Good
Care was personalised and people were involved in planning it. Staff supported activities, family relationships, healthcare appointments, education and goals for more independent living.
Well-led?
Good
The home had a positive, open and person-centred culture. Quality checks were in place, and the manager responded to improvements identified during the inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2020

Mosaic House is Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some safety and record-keeping improvements needed.

This was an unannounced inspection on 17 December 2019. One inspector spoke with all five people living there, the manager and staff. They reviewed care files, staff records, medicines information, quality checks and policies. They also received feedback from health and social care professionals.

The inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Staff knew people well and supported their health, independence, activities and relationships. Medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean.

The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 13 June 2017.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful staff

    People said staff were kind, listened to them and treated them well. Inspectors saw friendly and respectful interactions.

    “People told us staff were kind and treated them well.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    People were involved in creating and reviewing their support plans. Staff knew their needs, preferences and goals.

    “Each person had an up to date personalised support plan.” from the report
  • Support for independence

    Staff helped people develop everyday skills such as cooking, managing appointments, handling money and taking medicines.

    “People's development, and learning skills such as cooking, making health appointments, managing finances and self-administering medicines was supported by staff.” from the report
  • Good activities and relationships

    People were supported to take part in activities, use community facilities and keep in touch with family and friends.

    “Staff supported people to maintain the relationships they wanted with family and friends.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Fire risk assessment

    needs fixing

    The report did not show that the fire risk assessment had been completed by someone qualified to provide a robust assessment. The manager said advice had been sought and a competent person had been arranged afterwards.

    “However, it was not evident that it had been completed by someone qualified to complete a robust and effective fire risk assessment of the premises.” from the report
  • Safeguarding reporting

    needs fixing

    Some care staff needed prompting about reporting suspected abuse or discrimination to the local authority if management did not take appropriate action. The manager said the procedure was discussed with all staff after the inspection.

    “However, some care staff needed prompting before telling us they would report suspicions of abuse to the host local authority safeguarding team, if appropriate action had not been taken by management.” from the report
  • Weight records

    needs fixing

    Some people's weights were recorded using two different measurements and were sometimes inaccurate. This could have made important changes harder to identify, although the manager said staff corrected the recording method.

    “However, we noted that some people's weights were being recorded in two different weight measurements and were sometimes inaccurate.” from the report
  • Incident and complaint analysis

    minor

    At the inspection, there was no formal regular written analysis of incidents, accidents and complaints to look for patterns. The manager said this had started after the inspection.

    “At the time of the inspection a formal regular written analysis of incidents, accidents and complaints to identify any patterns and trends and to help prevent similar events being repeated was not in place.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Has the competent person completed the fire risk assessment, and what actions came from it?
  2. 02How do staff learn and demonstrate that they know how to report safeguarding concerns outside the home?
  3. 03How are people's weights recorded now, and how are changes checked and acted on?
  4. 04How often are incidents, accidents and complaints analysed for patterns, and what improvements have resulted?
  5. 05How are people involved in choosing activities and setting goals for greater independence?

This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the care home premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, June 2017

Mosaic House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred support, with a food-storage issue needing prompt attention.

This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 28 April 2017. One inspector spoke with two people who used the service, two support workers and the registered manager. They also observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and other documents.

The inspectors found that the home remained Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were involved in their care planning, supported to become more independent, and helped to take part in activities and community life.

The home was clean and medicines were well managed. However, some food was not stored safely or cupboards were not clean. The registered manager said this would be addressed as a priority. The previous inspection had also rated the home Good.

What inspectors praised
  • Medicines managed well

    Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given and recorded appropriately. Medicines were also checked and counted daily.

    “Medicines at the home were stored, administered and recorded appropriately.” from the report
  • Respect and dignity

    Staff communicated respectfully and supported people's privacy, relationships and independence.

    “People's privacy and dignity was respected.” from the report
  • Activities and independence

    People took part in activities they chose, including holidays, sport, cooking, shopping and support towards employment.

    “People were supported to participate in a range of group and individualised activities of their choice by staff at the home.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Food storage and cleanliness

    needs fixing

    A cereal packet had been left open, a spread was not refrigerated as its label required, and one cupboard needed cleaning. The registered manager recognised this as a potential food-safety risk and said it would be addressed as a priority.

    “Although there was no immediate risk to people, the registered manager recognised that this presented a potential food safety risk.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What action was taken after the inspection's findings about the open cereal, unrefrigerated spread and cupboard cleanliness?
  2. 02How are food storage and kitchen cleanliness checked now, and how are people supported to prepare their own meals safely?
  3. 03How would you support my relative to build independence with cooking, money, medicines and community activities?
  4. 04How do you provide extra staff when someone needs support with appointments or activities?
  5. 05How would you plan and measure progress towards moving into supported living, if that is suitable for my relative?

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 2017 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Mosaic House

4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Mosaic House →

  2. June 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Mosaic House →

  3. August 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. September 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. September 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. March 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Brent

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.”
John M., about Liliana S.
“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.”
Lindsay C., about Peter W.
See live-in carers near BrentProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.