Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at North Downs Villa

Goodpublished 10 October 2024, 23 months ago

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

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2023

North Downs Villa was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, leadership and independence concerns.

This was an urgent, unannounced comprehensive inspection on 29 September 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, policies and quality checks. They also inspected the building and grounds.

The home was not keeping people safe. There were safeguarding risks linked to a separate residence in the grounds, missed notifications to CQC, gaps in staff training and hazards in the building. The home was also restrictive, and people were not given enough support to build everyday living skills and independence.

The overall rating fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate. Effective and responsive were rated Requires Improvement. Caring remained Good. The home was placed in special measures, and CQC requested action plans and said it would continue to monitor progress.

What inspectors praised
  • Suitable recruitment

    The home used applications, interviews, references, identity checks and DBS checks when recruiting staff.

    “Staff were recruited through a process involving application, interview and background checks.” from the report
  • Access to healthcare

    People had timely support to attend GP appointments and meet specialist mental health professionals.

    “People had timely access to healthcare professionals. For example, staff supported people to attend GP appointments and recorded the outcome of these visits.” from the report
  • Respectful privacy

    Inspectors saw staff knock on bedroom doors and wait for permission before entering. Care records also included personal care preferences.

    “We observed staff knocking on people's bedrooms and awaiting their permission before entering.” from the report
  • Support with communication and relationships

    Communication needs were assessed, and staff supported people to maintain contact with relatives when they wished.

    “Staff supported people to maintain contact with people who were important to them.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Safeguarding risks

    serious

    Part of the grounds had been converted into a residence for someone who was not a resident or staff member. The home had not assessed the risks this created for people, visitors or staff.

    “The provider failed to adequately protect people from the risk of abuse.” from the report
  • Serious incidents not reported

    serious

    The provider did not notify CQC about significant events, including safeguarding allegations that had been substantiated by the local authority.

    “The provider did not inform CQC when local authority social workers investigated and substantiated abuse allegations.” from the report
  • Staff training gaps

    serious

    Staff had not received the training needed to manage behavioural support needs safely. The home also did not provide supervision at the frequency set out in its policy.

    “Staff did not have the training they required to always keep people safe.” from the report
  • Poor environment

    needs fixing

    The home was worn and not dementia friendly. Inspectors found damaged walls, broken tiles, waste in the garden and uncomfortable furniture, including a chair with a collapsed seat.

    “The lounge area of the service was not comfortable or welcoming.” from the report
  • Restrictions and limited independence

    serious

    People could not use the kitchen or laundry without staff. Staff usually completed cooking, cleaning and laundry instead of teaching people these skills.

    “People could not access the kitchen or laundry room because both rooms were locked.” from the report
  • Weak management oversight

    serious

    The home's audits did not identify important problems, and senior staff could not access all requested records when the registered manager left during the inspection.

    “The provider's quality assurance processes were inadequate.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What safeguards and risk assessments are now in place concerning the separate residence in the grounds?
  2. 02What action has been taken to make sure all safeguarding incidents are reported to CQC without delay?
  3. 03Have all staff completed behavioural support training, and how often are staff now supervised?
  4. 04What repairs and changes have been made to the lounge, stairs, garden and dementia-friendly signage?
  5. 05How are people now being supported to use the kitchen and laundry and develop independent living skills?

This was an urgent, unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including the building, grounds, care records, staff records, medicines and infection control. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, October 2020

North Downs Villa is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found clear progress, but said it was too soon to know whether improvements would last.

This was a follow-up inspection. The inspector visited on 17 September 2020 and reviewed records and further information up to 1 October 2020. They spoke with one person, two staff members, the registered manager and the nominated individual.

The home had improved medicine management, mental health assessments, care records and quality checks. The Effective question improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors also found that previous breaches of regulations had been addressed.

The overall rating remains Requires Improvement because the improvements were recent. The Well-led question also remains Requires Improvement because inspectors needed more evidence that the changes would continue over time. Safe and Responsive were inspected only in specific areas and were not re-rated.

What inspectors praised
  • Medicine management

    Medicine storage had improved, with clearer checks on opening dates, expiry and stock. Inspectors found the home was no longer in breach of the safe care and treatment regulation.

    “Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 12.” from the report
  • Mental health support

    Staff had more information about people's mental health, including possible triggers and when extra support or professional help might be needed.

    “Staff had guidance about people's mental health needs and how they could support them.” from the report
  • Personalised information

    Care records had improved and included more information about people's histories, likes, dislikes, hobbies and interests.

    “Care records had improved since our last inspection and contained more person-centred information about people, their history, likes and dislikes, hobbies and interests.” from the report
  • Management systems

    The provider had increased support for the registered manager and introduced more audits. Maintenance problems and care records were being monitored more regularly.

    “Audits and quality checks had been introduced to make sure people remained safe.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Improvements need to last

    needs fixing

    Inspectors had seen progress, but the home had a history of concerns about leadership and governance. They wanted evidence that the new systems would remain effective over time.

    “We need to be sure the provider sustains these and continues to progress.” from the report
  • Kitchen access

    needs fixing

    The kitchen was still locked, although some people had been given the door code after a risk assessment. Inspectors asked the provider to keep reviewing whether a less restrictive arrangement could be used safely.

    “At this inspection we found the kitchen was still locked.” from the report
  • Care records still need development

    minor

    Inspectors said records could contain more information about people's goals and mental health needs so that new staff could support them consistently.

    “The registered manager agreed to further improve people's records with more person-centred information to help staff support people with their mental health needs in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How will you show that the improvements in management and quality checks are continuing?
  2. 02How are each person's mental health triggers, warning signs and crisis support recorded and kept up to date?
  3. 03What arrangements are in place for people who need or want to use the kitchen independently?
  4. 04How do you check that care records reflect each person's goals, interests and support needs?
  5. 05What further changes are planned before the next comprehensive inspection?

This was a focused inspection of Effective and Well-led, with a targeted check of specific concerns under Safe and Responsive; Safe and Responsive were not re-rated and the other questions were not fully assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of North Downs Villa

7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.

  1. December 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at North Downs Villa →

  2. October 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: GoodResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at North Downs Villa →

  3. October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Effective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. March 2018Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. February 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. September 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. June 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. January 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. December 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 December 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 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”
Marie-anne B., about Carla A.
“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”
Bianca V., about Terry S.
See live-in carers near CroydonProfiles, 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.