CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Neave Crescent
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, regular safety checks and safe medicines management. Staff were trained to recognise and report abuse, and incidents were recorded and reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff were trained and supervised, and people received support with food, health appointments and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind and patient. People and relatives were involved in care decisions, and inspectors found that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences, communication needs and routines. People were supported to enjoy activities, holidays and community life, and complaints were handled appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care and act on any shortfalls.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Neave Crescent was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the home larger than recommended by best-practice guidance.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 March 2020. One inspector spoke with staff, a visiting professional and relatives, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home supported seven people with learning and physical disabilities. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness, involved in decisions, supported to be independent and helped to take part in activities and community life. Staff understood people's communication needs and worked with health professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection, published in September 2017. Good means the inspection found consistently good care and management, although it does not mean every aspect was perfect.
Promoting independence
People were supported to make choices, gain skills and take part in community life. The home aimed to give people control over how they lived.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff being patient and caring. People appeared comfortable and engaged, and relatives gave positive feedback.
“People smiled when staff were interacting with them and staff sought to ensure people were comfortable and engaged at all times.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, health needs and communication methods. Staff used this information to provide care in the way each person preferred.
“People's care plans were personalised and recorded information about people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Good safety arrangements
The home had risk assessments, safety checks, trained staff and systems for managing medicines and learning from incidents.
“Risk assessments were completed so staff were aware of the risks to people and how to best avoid harm coming to them.” from the report
Involving families
Relatives were invited to reviews and could give feedback or raise concerns. Inspectors found that complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately.
“People and relatives were invited to regular care reviews where they had the opportunity to input into decisions about people's care.” from the report
Larger than recommended
minorThe home is larger than recommended by best-practice guidance. Inspectors said the building design and the way care was organised reduced the impact, but this is still worth discussing for your relative.
“The service is larger than recommended by best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure the home's larger size does not affect personalised care, independence or community involvement?
- 02What progress has been made with the planned sensory garden?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough familiar staff, including when regular staff are absent?
- 04How are medicines staff trained, checked and audited over time?
- 05How will you involve our relative and family in care reviews and decisions?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home itself; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 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.
What inspectors found, September 2017
Neave Crescent was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 14 August 2017. The inspector observed care, spoke with relatives, staff, managers and a visiting advocate, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people received safe medicines support, had suitable risk assessments, and were supported by trained staff in sufficient numbers.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care plans were personalised and up to date. Staff supported people's health, nutrition, communication, choices, independence and contact with family and friends.
At the previous inspection in March 2016, the home had been rated Requires Improvement and had breached requirements about medicines and risk assessments. Inspectors found these problems had been addressed, and the home was compliant with the relevant legal requirements at this inspection.
Safer medicines
The home had corrected earlier problems with medicines. Staff had current training and competency checks, and medicines records and audits were up to date.
“We found that medicines were administered, recorded and managed safely by staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's health needs, risks, preferences and communication. They were based on reassessments and were reviewed when needs changed.
“Care plans were developed based on this assessment, were personalised and covered all areas which people required support with.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them in ways they understood. Inspectors saw respectful care, encouragement and positive relationships.
“People were treated with kindness and their privacy and dignity were respected.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to choose activities and spend time where they preferred. The home also had an adapted vehicle and accessible outdoor space.
“We observed that staff spent time sitting with people, engaged in conversations and activities of people's choice.” from the report
Improved management
The management team had improved record keeping and used regular audits and an improvement plan to monitor the service.
“This demonstrated that quality assurance systems were sufficiently used to drive forward improvements to the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are medicines records, tablet counts and controlled medicines checked now?
- 02How are individual risk assessments reviewed when someone's health or support needs change?
- 03How do you make sure care plans remain personalised and reflect the person's current preferences?
- 04How are people who cannot speak directly supported to communicate their choices and raise concerns?
- 05What training and competency checks do staff receive for complex needs such as PEG feeding, epilepsy and choking risks?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and included observations, conversations and reviews of care, medicines, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 September 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.
Every inspection of Neave Crescent
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 September 2013.
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 Havering
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. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.