CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Residential Care Providers Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were assessed with clear guidance for staff. Medicines were generally managed safely, but three gaps in medicines records were not identified by the home’s checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training, supervision and knowledge of people’s needs. People were supported with their diet, healthcare, communication and legal rights.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to communicate, make choices, maintain privacy and follow their cultural and spiritual preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported to take part in activities, access the community, maintain relationships and receive information in ways they could understand.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and inclusive culture, positive staff teamwork and effective management oversight. Audits and feedback systems were in place, although some medicines checks had not been effective.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Residential Care Providers Limited is Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicines records needing better checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 November 2019. One inspector observed people’s care and how staff supported them, spoke with one person, staff and two relatives, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, incident and management records.
The home supports five people with learning disabilities and complex needs. Inspectors found people appeared comfortable with staff. Staff were patient, respectful and familiar with people’s needs. Relatives gave positive feedback about the care and management.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was clean, had enough staff, and supported people with food, healthcare, communication, activities and personal choices.
There were some weaknesses. A small number of medicines administration records had unexplained gaps, and the home’s checks had not found them. Incident records did not always explain what action was taken. The home agreed to improve these systems.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were patient, caring and respectful. People appeared at ease with them, and their dignity and privacy were promoted.
“We noted that people appeared at ease when in the presence of staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people’s individual needs, preferences and communication styles. Staff knew people well and adapted their support.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their individual needs.” from the report
Stable staffing
The home had enough staff, with many care workers having worked there for several years. This supported continuity for people.
“The majority of care workers had worked at the home for a number of years which provided continuity and consistency in the level of care people received.” from the report
Activities and community access
People were supported to do activities they enjoyed, go out, use local services and maintain relationships.
“People received support to lead the lifestyle of their choice and avoid social isolation.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff described managers as approachable and said they could raise concerns openly. Inspectors found positive teamwork and regular communication.
“People benefitted from a service that had an open and inclusive culture.” from the report
Medicines records were not always complete
needs fixingThree gaps were found in medicines administration records. The manager said the medicines had been given, but staff had not signed correctly, and existing checks had failed to find the gaps.
“It was therefore evident that there was not an effective system in place to monitor and check the completion of MARs.” from the report
Incident follow-up was not fully recorded
minorAccident and incident forms described what happened but did not always record the action taken afterwards. The manager said the form would be changed.
“However, we noted that there was a lack of information recorded about subsequent action taken by the home following an accident/incident.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made since the inspection to check medicines administration records every day?
- 02How do you now make sure every medicine given is signed for correctly?
- 03How are accident and incident records checked to confirm that follow-up action is recorded?
- 04How often are staff’s specialist training and refresher training reviewed, including epilepsy training?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing their care plan, communication needs and activities?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and checks of selected care, medicines, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with limited external checking of people's finances.
The CQC made an unannounced visit on 27 April 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with two relatives, the registered manager and two care workers, and reviewed care plans, staff files, training records and management records.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and complex needs. Inspectors found that people's care was personalised and that staff understood their needs, communication methods, likes and dislikes. They found safe medicines systems, suitable staffing, clean premises and good support with health, food and activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says these ratings remained Good. Inspectors identified one shortfall: there was not enough external auditing of people's finances, and the registered manager said this would be reviewed.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected each person's needs, preferences and abilities. Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and routines.
“Care plans were person-centred, and specific to each person and their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships and staff who treated people with dignity, patience and respect.
“Staff were kind, attentive and spoke in a gentle and pleasant manner to people.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Records showed medicines were given at the prescribed time.
“Medicines records were fully completed which indicated people received their medicines at the prescribed time.” from the report
Good communication
Communication passports helped staff understand how people expressed themselves. Staff responded to gestures and other individual ways of communicating.
“People's care plans contained 'Communication Passports' which provided personalised information on how people communicated and how staff should communicate with them.” from the report
Positive behaviour support
Staff received training in positive behaviour techniques and understood possible triggers. Inspectors reported a positive outcome for one person who no longer needed medicines to manage their behaviour.
“This resulted in having a positive impact on people using the service.” from the report
External checks on finances
needs fixingThe home carried out some daily and management checks on people's finances, but inspectors found there was no sufficient external auditing. The manager said this would be reviewed with local authorities.
“Although there were some checks in place, there was a lack of external auditing conducted to ensure people's finances were being managed safely and appropriately.” from the report
- 01What external auditing of people's finances is now in place, and who checks the records?
- 02How are DoLS authorisations reviewed when a person's circumstances or care needs change?
- 03How do staff use each person's Communication Passport in everyday care?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels remain suitable when people's needs change?
- 05How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed, and how are relatives involved?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 June 2017 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 Residential Care Providers Limited
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Residential Care Providers Limited →
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Residential Care Providers Limited →
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 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 Harrow
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 £1,270 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
“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.”
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.