CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Prince Regent House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks, medicines, safeguarding, staffing, recruitment, fire safety and infection control were managed appropriately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans supported health, independence and daily living skills. Staff received relevant training and people had access to health services when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were caring and understood people well. People were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and supported to develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences, routines and goals. People were supported with communication, activities, visitors and relationships that mattered to them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff spoke positively about the home. The provider used meetings, feedback and audits to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 29 June and 7 July 2022. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, a relative and staff. They also checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities or autism and could support up to ten. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices, build skills, access activities and maintain relationships.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection published on 8 June 2018.
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines, communication needs and goals. Staff supported people to make choices and build everyday skills.
“Their care plans reflected their needs and preferences and guided staff to support them to live fulfilled lives.” from the report
Safety planning
Risks were assessed and staff knew how to manage them. Positive behaviour support plans, emergency plans and staff training helped people stay safe.
“Staff had completed accredited training and demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people safely, in line with best practice.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw caring interactions. Staff respected privacy, equality and cultural needs, and supported people to attend places and activities important to them.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a caring and supportive way throughout the time of our inspection.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, both at home and in the local community. Visitors and relationships were encouraged.
“The activities people took part in included going cycling, skateboarding, bowling as well as trips out to social clubs, shopping and to the cinema.” from the report
Manager registration was still in progress
minorThere was a manager in place, but no registered manager at the time of the inspection. The report says the manager was applying to become registered.
“At the time of our inspection the service did not have a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Has the current manager now become registered with CQC, and who is legally responsible for the home while that process is ongoing?
- 02How often is agency staff used, and how do you make sure agency workers know each person's needs and routines?
- 03How are people involved in setting and reviewing their personal goals and activity plans?
- 04How do you check that medicines, including medicines given when needed, continue to be administered and recorded correctly?
- 05How do people and relatives give feedback, and what recent changes have been made because of it?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; the report says the previous overall and question ratings were also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 September 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, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some improvements still needed in medicines checks and end-of-life planning.
The inspection was announced and took place on 6, 10 and 16 April 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and a relative, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, finances, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, detailed risk assessments, personalised care plans and support for people's health, choices, dignity and independence.
The report says improvements had been made since the January 2016 inspection, when most staff had not completed autism training. Staff had now received autism awareness training. Inspectors made two recommendations, about medicines quality checks and end-of-life care planning.
Personalised care
Care plans described people's histories, preferences, communication needs and what a good or bad day looked like. Staff were expected to follow each person's individual guidance.
“Care records were very detailed, personalised, pictorial and contained people's preferences.” from the report
Autism training
The report says improvements had been made since the previous inspection. Staff training included autism awareness and challenging behaviour.
“During this inspection, we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, use communication aids, take part in activities and do tasks for themselves where possible.
“This showed people were supported to maintain their independence.” from the report
Staff support
Staff received induction, training, regular supervision and annual appraisals. Inspectors found this supported staff to carry out their roles effectively.
“The above meant staff were supported through training, supervisions and appraisals to carry out their role effectively.” from the report
Medicines stock checks
seriousThe amount of one PRN pain medicine did not match the amount recorded. The provider dealt with this immediately, but the medicines audit did not include a check of stock against records.
“We recommend the provider seeks advice and guidance about effective quality assurance systems for medicines.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingNobody was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection. The policy explained support after death but not how to support a person during the time leading up to death.
“This omission could mean people's wishes for their last days of life would be unfulfilled.” from the report
Unlocked shed
minorA shed containing tools was found unlocked. The manager bought a suitable padlock immediately after inspectors raised it.
“We noted during the inspection that a shed containing tools was unlocked.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to check medicine stock against the records after the inspection?
- 02How do you now record and discuss a person's wishes and support needs for the period leading up to death?
- 03How do you make sure tools and other potentially unsafe items are kept secure?
- 04How would you support someone with mobility difficulties in a building with stairs and no lift?
This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; the previous overall rating in January 2016 was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 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 Prince Regent House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 August 2014.
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 Newham
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 £1,190 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She is a safe pair of hands and her years of experience certainly shine through.”
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
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.