CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Muriel Street Resource Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were stored and recorded properly, and infection prevention measures were in place. They also found suitable recruitment checks and appropriate responses to incidents and concerns.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors observed positive interactions and staff treating people with dignity and respect.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection. Inspectors did examine how the home responded to eating and drinking risks and explained information to a person's family.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe risk management, infection control, medicines practice and respectful care at Muriel Street Resource Centre.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 13 April 2022. It checked how the home managed food and hydration after a concern was raised, as well as infection prevention and control.
Inspectors spoke briefly with three people, observed staff, spoke with the manager and checked risk assessments, records and controlled medicines. They found people were protected from preventable harm, the environment was safe and clean, and infection control measures were in place.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 21 April 2021, and this targeted inspection did not change that rating.
Managing eating and drinking risks
The home worked with specialist speech and language therapy colleagues when people had swallowing or eating and drinking risks. A concern about one person's assessment was resolved and explained to their family.
“We found that the service liaised with specialist healthcare speech and language therapy colleagues to obtain the most appropriate advice” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Audits were used to identify and address improvements. The controlled medicines checked were securely stored and properly recorded.
“These showed proper secure storage and recording of controlled medicines and the medicines policy clearly outlined the procedures” from the report
Respectful staff interactions
Inspectors observed staff supporting people during activities and lunchtime. The interactions were positive and respectful.
“These interactions were positive, and staff were seen treating people with the dignity and respect they deserved.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are each person's swallowing, eating and drinking risks recorded and kept up to date?
- 02How will you explain any changes in eating and drinking guidance to our family?
- 03How are visits planned, and what arrangements apply if there is an infection outbreak?
- 04What checks are carried out on medicines, including controlled medicines, and how are any errors addressed?
- 05When was the last full inspection, and what were the ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was a targeted inspection of food and hydration arrangements and infection prevention under Safe; it did not assess the whole service, and the previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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, April 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some fire safety work still ongoing.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 09 March 2021. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care and medicines records, and checked recruitment, training, audits and infection control.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received suitable food and medicines, and had care plans based on their needs and preferences.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement and found five breaches of regulation. The provider had addressed those breaches and was no longer in breach at this inspection.
Fire safety improvements were still being completed, although extra safety measures were in place. Inspectors also noted that some communal corridor lighting could be brighter.
Safety systems
Safeguarding concerns were acted on, risks were reviewed and medicines were administered safely. The home also had systems for learning from accidents and incidents.
“People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. There was an effective safeguarding procedure in place and staff followed it.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw calm, kind interactions and staff respecting privacy and offering choices.
“People and their visitors described staff as kind and caring. During our visit we observed staff engaging positively with people in a caring and respectful manner.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's history, communication needs, routines and preferences. People and relatives were involved in reviewing their care.
“Each person had personalised care plans which included information about people's life, their communication and their care needs and preferences.” from the report
Food and health support
People received food and drink suited to their health needs and preferences. Staff monitored weights, nutrition and hydration and involved health professionals when needed.
“People received food and nutrition that was appropriate for their health needs and personal dietary preferences.” from the report
Contact and activities
The home provided individual activities and helped people keep in touch with relatives during the pandemic through visits, video calls and telephone calls.
“Throughout COVID-19 pandemic staff supported people and their families to stay in touch as much as possible.” from the report
Fire safety work ongoing
needs fixingFire safety improvements had not all been completed at the inspection. The home had reduced the number of people on the top floor, increased staffing and carried out more drills as temporary safety measures.
“At this visit, we found that although fire safety improvements were ongoing, safety measures were put in place to ensure people could be safely evacuated in case of fire.” from the report
Keeping improvements in place
minorThe home had made substantial improvements since the previous inspection. Inspectors said it needed to ensure these improvements continued over time.
“The service now needs to work towards ensuring these positive changes are sustained.” from the report
- 01Have all the fire safety improvements mentioned in the report now been completed?
- 02What changes have been made to the lighting in the communal corridors?
- 03How do you check that the improvements made after the previous inspection are being maintained?
- 04How would you adapt care, activities and communication for my relative's specific needs?
- 05How will you keep me informed about my relative's health, care reviews and any concerns?
This inspection began as a focused check of Safe and Well-led and the previous breaches, but was extended to a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 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 Muriel Street Resource Centre
7 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Muriel Street Resource Centre →
- April 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Muriel Street Resource Centre →
- May 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
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 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.