CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Poplars Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 March 2021. It focused on how the home prevented and controlled COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, new admissions, residents and staff were protected through screening, testing, shielding, social distancing, PPE, cleaning and hygiene measures. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home had clear visitor guidance, regular PPE and handwashing checks, and staff champions for PPE and handwashing. It also offered video calls, an anxiety café and themed activities to support people's wellbeing during the pandemic.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four areas.
Infection control checks
The home carried out checks on PPE use, handwashing and social distancing. Managers took action when expected behaviour was not followed.
“Spot checks were carried out on staff to ensure they were complying with the requirements around wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Handwashing facilities
The home created a dedicated handwashing station with controls and a sensor to support effective handwashing.
“The handwashing station also consisted of an infrared sensor which notified them when they had washed their hands for 20 seconds.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
The home used video calls, mental health first aiders, an anxiety café and themed activities to help people stay connected and manage worries during the pandemic.
“The service set up mental health first aiders so people and staff could have supportive conversations about any concerns they may have.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
Relatives had a clear, illustrated procedure to follow when visiting the home.
“The service had created a clear step by step pictorial visitors procedure for peoples' relatives to follow on arrival to the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are the PPE spot checks and handwashing audits still being carried out?
- 02How does the home currently manage visitors and prevent infections from spreading?
- 03How are residents tested for infections, and how is testing arranged for staff?
- 04Are the mental health first aiders and activities such as video calls still available?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last updated?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the home was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 2021 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, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few small shortfalls addressed during or after the inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 September 2019. One inspector, a medicines team member and an Expert by Experience carried it out. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and checked care, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, medicines were managed safely, care was personalised and staff supported people's health, choices, dignity and activities.
There were some small issues. The provider did not initially have a record showing the full employment history for one staff member. Inspectors also noted a limitation on food choice and that the layout could be difficult to navigate. Management responded to these points.
The previous inspection, published on 2 May 2017, also rated the home Good. The report says the ratings stayed the same.
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. The home had clear guidance for medicines given when needed and records of medicine reviews.
“People received their medicines as prescribed, medicines were given individually with a clear explanation.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, backgrounds, interests and preferences. They were reviewed monthly or when people's needs changed.
“People received personalised care responsive to their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people sensitively and found that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“Throughout our visit we saw staff engage with people in a kind and courteous way.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home offered activities based on people's interests and supported links with musicians, faith groups, youth groups and local community organisations.
“Staff supported people to take part in daily activities which were meaningful and which people enjoyed.” from the report
Open management
Management sought views from people and staff and used surveys, audits and action plans to identify and address improvements.
“There was an open and transparent culture within the service, people were asked their views about the service and these were acted on.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment record
needs fixingThe provider did not initially have a record showing the full employment history for one staff member. The home obtained the information during and after the inspection.
“they did not have a record to show the full employment for one member of staff.” from the report
Food choice
minorOne person said their food choices were restricted because the kitchen was not operating as a catering kitchen. Management said the kitchen could meet individual choices and preferences.
“One person told us this restricted their food choice as the kitchen was not operating as a catering kitchen.” from the report
Layout and navigation
minorThe building was not purpose-built and its layout could be difficult to navigate. The home had made changes such as clearer door frames and signage.
“The home was not a purpose-built block and the layout could have been difficult to navigate.” from the report
Staff entering rooms
minorManagement found that staff sometimes opened bedroom doors without knocking during the day. This was raised in an action plan and inspectors saw an overall improvement.
“throughout the day people had returned to their rooms and staff had opened the doors without knocking” from the report
- 01How do you check that every staff member's full employment history and recruitment records are complete?
- 02How can you provide a wider choice of freshly prepared food if a resident does not like the planned menu?
- 03What support is available for residents who may find the building layout difficult to navigate?
- 04How do you make sure staff knock before entering bedrooms throughout the day?
- 05How are care plans and risk assessments updated when a resident's needs change?
This was an inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, medicines, the premises, staff records and how the home was managed. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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 Poplars Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 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 Hillingdon
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 £1,320 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.