CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Neem Tree Care Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visiting, PPE, testing, admissions, cleaning and outbreak arrangements. They found that some cleaning-product cupboards were not always locked and asked for clearer risk indicators in assessments.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control during COVID-19, with some cleaning cupboards and risk assessments needing attention.
This was a targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and asked about staffing pressures. The inspection was announced 24 hours beforehand.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. This included safe visiting, testing, isolation, admissions, use of protective equipment, cleaning, ventilation and social distancing. Staff and residents had access to vaccinations and regular testing.
There were two issues. Some cupboards containing cleaning products were not locked, but the home locked them during the inspection. Inspectors also asked for clearer signs of possible risks in COVID-19 risk assessments, and the home started updating these.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rating for the five questions. It was a focused check of infection control rather than a full assessment of the home.
Infection control
The home followed infection prevention procedures, used enhanced cleaning and kept records of cleaning. Managers also checked that protective equipment was being used correctly.
“We observed the home was clean and the provider followed enhanced cleaning procedures.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home supported contact with relatives and friends while using testing, vaccination evidence and a designated visiting area to reduce infection risks.
“People were supported to maintain contact with relatives and friends through tablets, phones and face to face visits.” from the report
Testing and outbreak response
Residents and staff took part in regular testing. The home followed guidance when people needed to test or isolate and shared information with relevant services.
“Everybody in the home participated in regular testing.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors saw staff wearing and disposing of protective equipment correctly, with supplies readily available throughout the home.
“We observed staff wearing and disposing of PPE correctly.” from the report
Unlocked cleaning products
seriousSome cupboards containing cleaning products were not locked when inspectors visited. The home acted immediately to lock them and explained how it would prevent this happening again.
“during the inspection we identified cupboards with cleaning products in them were not always locked.” from the report
Risk assessments needed more detail
needs fixingInspectors asked the home to identify possible risk indicators more clearly in COVID-19 risk assessments. The home started updating them on the day and provided a completion timeline.
“We discussed with the provider identifying more clearly potential risk indicators in the risk assessments.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure cupboards containing cleaning products remain locked?
- 02What changes were made to the COVID-19 risk assessments after the inspection?
- 03How do you currently manage visits, including testing and vaccination evidence where appropriate?
- 04How do you check that staff use and dispose of protective equipment correctly?
- 05How do you manage testing and isolation when a resident or staff member has a positive result?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 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, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, culturally respectful care, with some delays at lunchtime and small medicines improvements needed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care, checked the building and equipment, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives generally said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors saw kind and gentle staff, suitable care planning, safe medicines practices, good healthcare support and a wide range of activities.
There were some areas to improve. Some people waited a long time for help during lunch because staff were not deployed well. The home also needed to improve the labelling of medicines waste bins and the accuracy of storage thermometers. The manager agreed to address these points, and later said mealtime checks showed people had not had to wait for care.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and attentive. Inspectors observed staff speaking gently, listening to people and respecting their privacy and choices.
“People using the service and their relatives were happy and well cared for.” from the report
Cultural and religious support
The home supported people from Asian communities with shared languages and cultural understanding. It had culturally relevant activities, vegetarian food provision and a prayer room.
“They had shared cultural backgrounds and religions and were able to understand these and provide respectful care and support.” from the report
Safe medicines and healthcare
Medicines were given as prescribed, and staff responsible for them were trained and assessed as competent. Nursing staff monitored health and worked with other professionals.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in religious, cultural, social and leisure activities, including trips, music, crafts and links with local schools and groups.
“They had an extensive plan of different events which included, religious and cultural activities.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The management used audits, feedback, complaints and incident reviews to identify actions and check that improvements were completed.
“The registered manager had created action plans following incidents, accidents, complaints, adverse outcomes of audits and comments from others.” from the report
Delays at lunchtime
needs fixingSome people and relatives said they sometimes waited for care, and staff said they were often busy. Inspectors saw people waiting a long time for support during lunch because staff were not deployed appropriately.
“We observed that during lunch, some people waited a long time for support.” from the report
Medicines storage checks
minorInspectors found a small number of medicines-related issues. These included labelling medicines waste bins and resetting thermometers so storage temperatures were measured accurately.
“However, we found a small number of areas where improvements would minimise the risks of future errors.” from the report
LGBT inclusion training
minorInspectors did not identify concerning practices, but said further training could help people feel able to express their needs. The manager agreed to seek training and guidance.
“The registered manager agreed to access training and guidance to help promote an LGBT inclusive environment in the future.” from the report
- 01What staffing arrangements are now in place at lunchtime, and how do you check that people do not have to wait for help?
- 02Have the medicines waste bins been labelled correctly and are storage thermometers now checked for accurate readings?
- 03What LGBT inclusion training and guidance have staff received since the inspection?
- 04How are changes in a person's needs recorded and shared with their relatives and healthcare professionals?
- 05Which cultural, religious and individual activities would be available for my relative?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care home covering all five CQC key questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 2019 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 Neem Tree Care Limited
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 March 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 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.