CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pine House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood people's individual risks, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient, and the home was clean.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and regular supervision. People were supported with food, healthcare, communication, choices and health goals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in care planning, and independence and personal relationships were encouraged.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, communication needs and goals. People had individual activity plans, regular care reviews and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was described as approachable, and staff said they were well supported. Audits and checks covered care plans, risks, medicines, training, complaints and safety.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Pine House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was a planned inspection on 28 February 2019 to check whether the home remained Good. One inspector visited, spoke with all three people living there, two relatives, staff, managers and healthcare professionals, and reviewed care, staff and management records.
The inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood people's risks, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient, and the home was clean. People received personalised support, had choices, and were encouraged to be independent.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found good care and management at the time of this inspection, but it is not a promise about how the home is performing now.
Personalised risk support
Risks were assessed for each person and reviewed regularly. Staff knew how to support people safely while respecting their freedom.
“Risk assessments were personalised and regularly reviewed.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, specialist and refresher training, regular supervision and annual appraisals.
“Staff were provided sufficient induction, specialist and refresher training to enable them to provide effective care.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, use their preferred communication methods and develop everyday living skills.
“Staff assisted people to learn independent living skills and promoted their independence.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People had weekly activity plans based on their interests and health goals, including indoor and outdoor activities, trips and holidays.
“Each person had a weekly activity plan of physical, sensory, individual and group activities as per their choice.” from the report
Strong oversight
The provider used regular audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care and identify improvements.
“This meant the provider had effective systems in place to ensure the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative's individual risks before they moved in?
- 02How would you provide any two-to-one staffing my relative needed, including when they were out in the community?
- 03How would you support my relative's preferred communication method, such as pictures, objects of reference or sign language?
- 04How are people's health goals, food choices and activity plans reviewed?
- 05What do the latest care, medicines, staffing and safety audits show, and what actions are still open?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; the previous overall rating was Good in 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Pine House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support, with some records and emergency planning needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 27 June 2016. One inspector spoke with everyone living in the home, staff, family members and the commissioning body. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and the running of the home.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, kind support, meaningful activities and regular quality checks.
The previous inspection in April 2015 had found the service needed improvement and had four breaches. At this inspection, inspectors found that consent, medicines, infection control and environmental safety had improved. They still asked the home to improve some care records, fire evacuation plans and ways for people who could not read or write to complain.
Medicines were managed safely
Inspectors observed medicines being given correctly. Records had no errors or gaps, and as-needed medicines had suitable instructions.
“We observed staff administering medicines appropriately and looked at people's medicines administration records (MAR).” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff listened to people, supported their routines and maintained their privacy and dignity.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect, and maintained their privacy.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received induction, relevant training and regular supervision. They could describe people's needs and how to support them.
“Staff received regular supervision. Staff told us supervision was regular and supportive and they had an opportunity to raise any issues they might have.” from the report
Quality checks
The home carried out regular checks on the environment, medicines and service quality, with action plans when issues were found.
“Audits were undertaken to help maintain and improve on service quality.” from the report
Care records did not always show involvement
needs fixingPeople and families were involved in care planning, but plans were not always signed to confirm this.
“People and their families were involved in care planning and reviews but the care plans were not always signed to reflect this.” from the report
Best-interest decisions were not clearly recorded
needs fixingStaff were working in line with the Mental Capacity Act, but records did not always clearly identify when a person lacked capacity or when a best-interest decision had been made.
“There were no forms seen that deduced that people did not have capacity in specific areas and what the best interest decision was” from the report
Evacuation plans were incomplete
needs fixingOnly one person had a personal evacuation plan. Inspectors recommended that plans should be completed for everyone living in the home.
“We recommended the service complete personal evacuations plans for all people living in the service regardless of their ability to evacuate.” from the report
Complaints support could be clearer
minorThe home had a complaints policy and book, but inspectors said it should consider more ways to help people who could not read or write to complain.
“We discussed with the team leader the service could consider further ways to support people who did not read or write to complain.” from the report
- 01Have all residents now been given a personal fire evacuation plan, and are these plans reviewed when their needs change?
- 02How do you record a person's capacity, consent and any best-interest decisions in their care plan?
- 03How do you make sure people and their families sign care plans after taking part in reviews?
- 04How can someone complain if they cannot read or write, and how is their complaint recorded?
- 05Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and has the registered manager application been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home and all five rating areas, including checks on improvements required after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 2016 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 Pine House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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.