CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dagenham Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, safe admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing possible outbreaks. They found that checks of visiting professionals' vaccine status were not being recorded at the time.
- 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, April 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and visiting arrangements, but vaccine checks for visiting professionals were not recorded.
This was a targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care. The inspection was announced one day in advance.
The home had arrangements to reduce infection risks. Inspectors found enough protective equipment, appropriate use of it, regular testing, cleaning schedules and monthly infection control audits. New admissions were tested and kept separate for their first week.
Visiting was allowed in line with guidance at the time. The home had helped people keep in touch with relatives during more restrictive periods, including through garden visits and electronic communication.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five CQC questions.
Infection control
Inspectors found effective arrangements for protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing and preventing or managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safe admissions
New residents were tested before admission and kept apart from others for their first week, with a separate staff team.
“On admission, they spent the first week in an isolated part of the premises, so they had no contact with other people.” from the report
Family contact
The home supported visits in line with government guidance and used garden visits and electronic communication when restrictions were tighter.
“When there had been more restrictive guidance in place around visiting care homes, the service had sought to enable people to maintain contact with relatives as much as possible” from the report
Clean premises
Cleaning schedules and infection control audits were in place, and inspectors found the premises visibly clean.
“We saw the premises were visibly clean on the day of our inspection.” from the report
Vaccine checks were not recorded
needs fixingStaff checked visiting professionals' vaccine status, but the home did not have a system to record that the checks had happened. The manager said this would be put in place.
“However, the registered manager told us they did not have a system in place for recording that these checks has been carried out.” from the report
- 01How do you now record checks of COVID-19 vaccine status for visiting professionals?
- 02What infection prevention and control audits are currently carried out, and how often?
- 03What testing and separation arrangements are used when someone new moves into the home?
- 04How can residents keep in contact with relatives if visiting restrictions change?
- 05What measures are in place if COVID-19 causes staffing pressures?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 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 2 April 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one medicines guideline missing during the visit.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 February 2019. One inspector spoke with five people, four staff and the registered manager. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported adults with mental health needs and could support up to eight people. Seven people were living there at the time. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines management and appropriate safeguarding arrangements.
People told inspectors they were treated with respect and kindness. They found that care was personalised, people were supported to make choices and access health care, and there were activities and links with family and friends. All five areas were rated Good, as was the overall service. The previous inspection in May 2016 was also rated Good with no breaches.
Enough staff and safe recruitment
People and staff said there were enough staff, and inspectors observed sufficient staff on duty. Recruitment checks were in place before staff started work.
“There were enough staff working at the service to meet people's needs and robust staff recruitment procedures were in place.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described each person's needs, choices and planned outcomes. They were reviewed so they could reflect changes over time.
“These set out how to meet people's assessed needs in a personalised manner based around the needs of the individual.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People said staff were caring and respectful. Staff understood how to protect privacy and dignity while encouraging people to do things for themselves.
“People told us staff were caring and that they were treated in a kind and respectful manner.” from the report
Choice and independence
People could choose food, take part in cooking and activities, and go out independently where this was allowed. The home also supported contact with family and friends.
“You can go out when you like, come back when you like, not like an old people's home, we can do what we want.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used residents' meetings, surveys, staff meetings and audits to gather views and check areas such as medicines, finances, care plans and safety.
“Various quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place, some of these included seeing the views of people who used the service.” from the report
One medicines instruction was missing
minorInspectors found that guidance for giving one person's as-required medicine was not in place during the visit. The registered manager provided the missing guidance the next day.
“Guidelines were in place about when to administer medicines on a 'PRN' (as required) basis with the exception of one medicine for one person.” from the report
- 01What was the missing as-required medicines guideline, and how do you check that all such instructions remain up to date?
- 02How would you support my relative's particular mental health needs and review their care plan if those needs change?
- 03How do you involve residents and families in decisions about care, activities and changes to the home?
- 04What activities and support would be available to help my relative build daily living skills and remain independent?
- 05How do you monitor staffing levels and ensure staff have the training needed for my relative's care?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions, with records checked for three people and medicines records checked for four people. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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 Dagenham Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
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 Barking and Dagenham
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. 79 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is a safe pair of hands and her years of experience certainly shine through.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.