CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at NAS House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood people's risks and how to manage them. Inspectors found improvements to window restrictors and water hygiene arrangements since the previous inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected as part of this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected as part of this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected as part of this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider was involved in the home, listened to people and staff, and used audits and feedback to improve the service. This rating remained Good from the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2023
NAS House rated Good; inspectors found people safe, supported by consistent staff and listened to by the provider.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 19 May 2023. One inspector spoke with six people, observed how staff and residents interacted, spoke with the provider and a care support worker, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good, improving from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Inspectors found that window restrictors had been improved and water hygiene risks were now assessed and managed.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy with the care. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and people could have visitors without unnecessary restrictions.
Well-led was rated Good and remained at that level. The provider sought people's views, acted on feedback, checked the quality and safety of the service, and worked with healthcare professionals.
Safety improvements
The home acted on safety concerns from the previous inspection. Inspectors found more suitable window restrictors and a risk assessment for water hygiene.
“At this inspection we found windows had been fitted with more appropriate restrictors and the provider had a risk assessment in place” from the report
Consistent staffing
There were enough staff, and people were supported by a regular team who knew their needs.
“Staff rotas indicated that a regular team of staff supported people at the service on a day to day basis” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines stocks, records and storage were checked and found to be safe.
“Our checks of medicines stocks, balances and records showed people consistently received the medicines prescribed to them.” from the report
People's views heard
People and staff were asked for their views. The provider acted on feedback, including planning activities around people's preferences.
“People were provided opportunities to have their say about the service and give feedback about what they would like changed or improved” from the report
Positive relationships
People spoke positively about staff and said they felt settled and happy in the home.
“One person told us, "I am quite happy here and very settled.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are window restrictors and water hygiene arrangements checked now?
- 02How will my relative be involved in assessing and reviewing risks to their safety?
- 03How do you make sure the regular staff team continues to meet my relative's needs?
- 04How are medicines audits and staff medicines checks carried out?
- 05What improvements are included in the current business plan, and how can residents influence them?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 2023 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, March 2020
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found safety improvements were needed around window restrictors and water hygiene.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 March 2020. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with four people, one relative and staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, audits and other management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, personalised care plans and good support for people's health and independence.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Some window restrictors were not suitable to reduce the risk of falls from height. The home had also not completed a risk assessment for water hygiene. The responsible person said these issues would be dealt with immediately.
The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection published in September 2017. However, the Safe rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement, meaning some aspects were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety.
Kind, familiar staff
People had consistent care from staff who had worked at the home for many years. Inspectors observed kind, patient and respectful interactions.
“People received consistency of care from staff who had worked at the scheme for many years and knew them well.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found that people received medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored, given and disposed of securely, and staff had training and competency checks.
“Our checks of medicines stocks and records showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised care
People were involved in their care plans. The plans described their needs, backgrounds, preferences and how they wanted to receive care.
“Care plans were personalised and kept up to date so they remained reliable for staff to follow.” from the report
Support for independence
Staff helped people maintain everyday skills and supported them to cook, clean, do their laundry and go out into the community.
“However, staff supported people to maintain their independent living skills as far as possible.” from the report
Window and water safety
seriousSome window restrictors were not suitable to reduce the risk of falls from height. The home had also not completed a risk assessment to identify and manage water-hygiene risks.
“However, we identified some window restrictors were inappropriate so people may have been at risk from falls from height.” from the report
- 01Have all the window restrictors now been checked and adjusted, and how do you make sure they remain suitable?
- 02Has a water-hygiene risk assessment now been completed, and what actions did it identify?
- 03What checks are now in place to make sure safety problems are identified promptly?
- 04How do you assess whether staff remain competent to administer medicines safely?
- 05How will you involve my relative in keeping their care plan up to date?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that considered all five key questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 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.
Every inspection of NAS House
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 November 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 Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 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”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.