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
- Inspectors found safeguarding systems, person-specific risk assessments, suitable staffing, safe medicines arrangements and appropriate recruitment checks. They noted that medicines checks were carried out but not documented, and one person's liberty authorisation had expired while awaiting review.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, supervision and knowledge of people's needs. Care plans covered communication, nutrition and health needs, although some areas of the home looked tired and needed refurbishment.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. They understood people's communication methods, protected privacy and dignity, and encouraged people to make choices and be independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and regularly reviewed. People had activities, communication support and opportunities to maintain relationships, and the home had a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open, inclusive culture, effective teamwork and management oversight. Audits and meetings were used to monitor quality and identify improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Residential Care Providers Limited was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and premises needing attention.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 January 2020. One inspector observed people and staff, spoke with staff and relatives, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, incident and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People appeared comfortable with staff. Relatives said they were satisfied with the care and confident that people were safe.
Inspectors found suitable staffing, training, risk assessments and medicines systems. Staff understood people's communication needs and supported choice, independence, activities and healthcare. The home had a positive and open culture.
There were a few issues to keep under review. Checks of medicines records were carried out but not recorded, one person's liberty authorisation had expired while awaiting review, and some areas looked tired and needed refurbishment. The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection published in June 2017.
Kind and respectful support
Staff knew people well and gave them time to communicate. Inspectors saw calm, reassuring interactions that helped people feel at ease.
“People appeared at ease when in the presence of staff. Staff spent time with people.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans explained how each person communicated, including gestures, pictures and eye gaze. Staff used these approaches to support understanding and choice.
“People's communication needs were detailed in their care plans.” from the report
Good safety systems
The home had person-specific risk assessments, safeguarding procedures, fire plans and checks on people's finances and the premises.
“Comprehensive risk assessments were person specific and included clear details of potential risks and a detailed management highlighting how to support people to minimise risks.” from the report
Medicines audit records
needs fixingThe deputy manager checked medicines administration records, but these checks were not documented. Management said this would be recorded in future.
“The deputy manager confirmed that she carried out checks on MARs but these were not documented.” from the report
Expired liberty authorisation
needs fixingOne person's authorisation had expired while the home was waiting for the local authority to carry out a further review. The manager had contacted the authority about this.
“We noted that one person's authorisation had expired. The registered manager explained that they had previously informed the local authority of this and were waiting for them to conduct a further review.” from the report
Some tired areas
minorInspectors found the home comfortable and well furnished overall, but said some areas looked tired and needed refurbishment.
“We noted that some areas in the home looked tired and in need of refurbishment.” from the report
- 01How are medicines administration record audits documented now, and who checks that this is happening?
- 02What was the outcome of the review of the person's expired liberty authorisation?
- 03Which parts of the home needed refurbishment, and has this work now been completed?
- 04How will you support my relative's specific communication method and record their choices?
- 05What activities would be available for my relative in the community and at the home?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 February 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, August 2017
Residential Care Providers Limited was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some improvements needed to medicines and finance audits.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 July 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with two relatives, the deputy manager, the provider and four care workers, and reviewed care plans, staff files, training records and service records.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities and complex needs. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported with their health, food, activities, communication and independence. Care plans were personalised and updated when needs changed.
The home had suitable staffing, safeguarding training, recruitment checks and medicines procedures. Inspectors noted that medicines stock audits did not explain the results clearly, and there was not enough external auditing of people's finances.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection on 17 April 2015.
Personalised care
Care plans described each person's needs, preferences and communication. Staff knew people's likes and dislikes and updated plans when needs changed.
“Care plans were person-centred, and specific to each person and their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed warm relationships. Staff gave people time, respected their choices and encouraged them to do tasks for themselves.
“Staff were kind, attentive and spoke in a gentle and pleasant manner to people.” from the report
Support with health and eating
People were helped to access healthcare and received support with food, drinks and swallowing risks. Relevant professionals were involved where required.
“The support for the person was very well managed and after receiving medical treatment, the person's risk of choking had minimised” from the report
Good teamwork and management
Staff said they felt supported and inspectors saw good communication and teamwork. The provider used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service.
“During the inspection, we observed staff communicated well, supported each other and worked well as a team.” from the report
Medicines audit records
needs fixingWeekly stock audits recorded medicine numbers but did not clearly explain what the numbers represented, whether they were correct or whether action was needed. The deputy manager said this would be improved.
“It was not clear what the numbers represented and whether the medicines stock counts were correct or incorrect or identified whether any further action was needed.” from the report
External checks on finances
needs fixingSome daily and management checks of people's money were in place, but inspectors found there was no external auditing to make sure finances were managed safely and appropriately. The provider said this would be reviewed.
“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
- 01How are medicines stock checks recorded now, and how do you show that any errors or follow-up actions are dealt with?
- 02Who now independently audits people's finances, and how often are these checks completed?
- 03How are care plans reviewed when a person's health, behaviour or support needs change?
- 04How do you make sure staff understand each person's communication style, choices and preferred activities?
- 05How do relatives receive updates about healthcare appointments and changes in care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the home remained Good after the previous inspection on 17 April 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 August 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.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Residential Care Providers Limited →
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Residential Care Providers Limited →
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
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 £1,330 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“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.