CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Number Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment checks and infection control were generally managed safely, although some recruitment records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care based on their needs and choices. Staff were trained and supported, people received suitable food and healthcare, and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff were described as approachable, open and supportive. Audits and monitoring were in place, and the rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Number Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some recruitment records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 September and 4 October 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led because concerns had been raised about management, staffing, recruitment and medicines.
The home was rated Good in all three areas inspected. People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, infection control and safeguarding were managed safely. Staff were trained, knew people well and supported their health, choices, food and daily lives.
Inspectors found kind and respectful care, and relatives said managers were approachable and listened. Some recruitment records needed improvement, and some bedrooms were not personalised. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used for the overall rating.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and risks were assessed and managed.
“People and relatives told us they felt safe at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Relatives said staff were kind and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and asked for consent before providing care.
“Relatives told us staff were kind and caring towards their relative and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff completed relevant training, induction, supervision and appraisals. They told inspectors they felt supported by managers.
“People were cared for and supported by staff who were suitably trained and supported to effectively perform their roles and responsibilities.” from the report
Choice about meals
People were offered choices and could choose alternatives when they did not want the planned meal. They were also supported to prepare food in their preferred way.
“People were given choice and their likes and dislikes for food were considered.” from the report
Approachable management
Relatives and staff said managers listened and responded to concerns. The home had regular meetings and systems for checking quality.
“Relatives told us they were able to speak to management any time and were listened to.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingInspectors found gaps in recruitment records. The home said it had reviewed its application form and updated records after the inspection.
“We found some areas for improvement were required in relation to recruitment records.” from the report
Some bedrooms lacked personal touches
minorSome rooms were not personalised. Inspectors noted padlocks on wardrobe doors, although people were given keys and the manager was looking for other ways to protect personal belongings.
“People's rooms were furnished, but not always personalised.” from the report
- 01What changes did you make to recruitment records after the inspection, and how do you now check that every staff file is complete?
- 02How do you decide staffing levels when people need extra support, such as for appointments, activities or going out?
- 03How will you personalise my relative's bedroom while respecting their wishes and managing the risk of belongings being removed?
- 04Has the recommended learning disabilities psychology input and positive behaviour plan been arranged for the person who experiences anxiety?
- 05What are the current ratings and any recent findings for Caring and Responsive, which were not reassessed in this focused inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 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, August 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home was not always well-led.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 June 2018. One inspector spoke with four residents, three care staff and managers. They observed care and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicine records, staff files, meeting minutes and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found that residents were treated with respect, supported to make choices, helped to access healthcare and involved in their care and activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Some required notifications about a serious incident and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications had not been sent to the CQC. The overall rating remained Good because inspectors found no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Kind relationships
Residents appeared relaxed with staff, and inspectors saw supportive relationships. Staff had known many residents for a long time and understood their individual needs.
“People were relaxed with staff and we saw that positive and supportive relationships had developed between everyone.” from the report
Choice and independence
Residents were supported to make day-to-day choices and to do as much as possible for themselves, with staff help when needed.
“Everyone was encouraged to be as independent as they could be.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, goals, preferences and communication methods. They were updated when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were person centred and gave staff information about people's needs, goals and aspirations whilst being mindful of identified risks to their safety.” from the report
Clean and safe environment
The home and kitchen were clean. Fire safety checks and evacuation plans were in place, and medicines were audited.
“All parts of the home, including the kitchen, were clean and no malodours were detected.” from the report
Activities and healthcare
Residents had individual activity plans and regular access to health professionals. Activities reflected their interests and cultural or spiritual preferences.
“Everyone had an individual activity plan which included both community activities as well as activities within the home.” from the report
Late or missing notifications
needs fixingThe home did not always notify the CQC about required events. This included a serious accident and some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications.
“Notifications about certain changes, events and incidents that affect their service or the people who use it were not always being sent to the Commission.” from the report
Risk assessments lacked detail
needs fixingTwo risk assessments did not contain enough detail for every staff member to understand what was required. Managers said they would improve them.
“We noted that in two instances risk assessments did not always record risk in sufficient detail.” from the report
Allergy information
minorMedicine administration records did not always state whether residents had known or unknown allergies. The manager said the pharmacy would be contacted.
“People's allergies either known or unknown had not always been recorded.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure serious incidents and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications are notified to the CQC without delay?
- 02Have all residents' risk assessments been reviewed and made sufficiently detailed for new staff to follow?
- 03How do you now check that medicine records include each resident's allergy information?
- 04How are residents involved in choosing activities, meals and changes to their care plans?
- 05How do you monitor whether residents' mental health needs and recovery goals are changing?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; it reviewed four residents' care records and other selected records. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 August 2018 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 Number Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Number Residential Care Home →
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Number Residential Care Home →
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 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 Haringey
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. 75 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Violet is a kind and positive, caring person and we are lucky and delighted to have her caring for our 96 year old grandmother.”
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.