CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Otto Schiff
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were keeping people safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 August 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, following social distancing and shielding rules, and arranging testing for residents and staff.
Visitors were screened and given protective equipment. The home had a separate garden entrance for visits, although non-essential visiting was restricted at the time because possible infections had recently been reported.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a standard overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors were given information before visits restarted, screened for COVID-19 symptoms and provided with protective equipment.
“All visitors were screened for symptoms of COVID-19 and were provided with full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).” from the report
Monitoring for infection
Staff monitored residents for possible symptoms so action could be taken quickly to contain infection and reduce its spread.
“All staff worked together to continuously monitor people for any signs or symptoms of possible infection” from the report
Up-to-date procedures
The provider had infection control policies and procedures to guide care and staff support, and these were reviewed when needed.
“These were reviewed and updated when required.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and are there any restrictions because of infection?
- 02How are residents and staff currently tested for infections?
- 03How do you monitor residents for signs or symptoms of infection?
- 04How often are staff trained and observed on infection control and PPE?
- 05What arrangements are in place to manage an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 September 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, May 2019
Otto Schiff was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but identified minor medicines issues and concerns about agency staffing.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 20 February 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, complaints, accidents, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally said staff were kind, respectful and caring. Care plans and risk assessments were in place, the home was clean, and people had access to activities and health professionals.
Inspectors found minor problems with medicines documentation and some risk assessments. Agency staff use affected some people's experience, and complaint records did not always show actions or learning clearly. The provider made improvements to medicines records and created information for agency staff after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People generally said staff were kind, caring and respectful. Staff supported people to make choices and retain their independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Clean surroundings
Inspectors found the home clean, with regular cleaning checks and no unpleasant smells. Food was stored safely and staff used protective equipment.
“People were unanimous in their praise of the cleanliness of the service.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's routines, interests, preferences and support needs. Staff could use electronic records to read and update this information.
“Care records personalised, comprehensive and up to date.” from the report
Activities and support
People could take part in music, art, outings, gardening, photography, films and other activities. The home also worked with health and social care professionals.
“There was a range of activities taking place at the service from music, art, outings, gardening photography and film.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome records did not clearly show that covert medicines were being given in the least restrictive way or reviewed regularly. Instructions for one medicine were also not clear, although inspectors found no evidence of harm and the provider made changes afterwards.
“Documentation for people given medicines covertly due to their mental capacity did not always evidence the least restrictive method was always being followed by staff.” from the report
Use of agency staff
needs fixingSome people, relatives and staff said agency staff did not always know residents well and that people sometimes had to wait for help. The home was working on recruitment and introduced written information for agency staff after the inspection.
“The service had a tool to determine appropriate staffing levels, some people told us that the usage of agency staff impacted on their experience of care.” from the report
Risk assessment detail
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not give enough practical guidance. This included support for a person whose condition changed during the day and how to calm someone who was agitated.
“We found limited mitigating advice on other risk assessments.” from the report
Complaint records
needs fixingDay-to-day complaint records did not always show what action was taken, when it happened or what was learned. Explanations were also not always recorded when complaints were not upheld.
“The service, when dealing with day to day concerns, did not have a comprehensive log of information regarding actions taken, when they were actioned and lessons learnt.” from the report
- 01How do you check that decisions about covert medicines are made in the least restrictive way and reviewed regularly?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each resident's care needs, preferences and risks before they provide care?
- 03What staffing levels do you have on mornings, evenings and weekends, and how do you respond to sickness or agency shortages?
- 04How do you record actions, timescales and lessons learned after complaints?
- 05How are risk assessments kept up to date for people whose needs change during the day or who may become agitated?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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 Otto Schiff
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 July 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 Barnet
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. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on life.”
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.