CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Restoration Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found risks, staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and accident reporting were managed appropriately.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on assessments of people's needs and choices. Staff supported people's health, nutrition and access to healthcare professionals, and followed the Mental Capacity Act requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful, protected people's privacy and supported independence. This was an improvement from the 2019 inspection, when this area was rated Requires Improvement and regulation 10 was breached.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines and communication needs. People were supported with activities, relationships, complaints and their end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular checks and audits, experienced leadership and systems for learning from incidents and complaints. Inspectors found a positive culture focused on people's needs and improvement.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Restoration Residential Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 20 September 2022. One inspector spoke with three people, observed interactions, spoke with staff and the manager, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training and management records.
The home supports up to four people with mental health needs. Four people were living there at the time. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staffing was sufficient, and the home was clean and hygienic.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement. Inspectors said improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach of the earlier regulation.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and how to manage risks.
“People were safe at the service. Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed speaking warmly, listening to people and giving them time. People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“Conversations between people and staff were warm and friendly. Staff were respectful when talking to people, listened to what people had to say and responded in an appropriate way.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to choose activities and outings that matched their interests. Friends and family could visit without unnecessary restrictions.
“This included group outings, for example to a local farm and to go bowling and individual outings to the shops, coffee shop and meals at local cafes and restaurants.” from the report
Strong oversight
The provider used audits and checks to monitor quality and safety. Inspectors found the manager had good knowledge of people's needs and oversight of the home.
“The provider had maintained an effective system of audits and checks to monitor and review the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you keep checking that the improvements made since the previous inspection are maintained?
- 02How would you support my relative's particular mental health needs and work with their healthcare professionals?
- 03How do you make sure medicines remain appropriate, safe and given as prescribed?
- 04What activities would be available that match my relative's interests and preferences?
- 05How many staff would usually be on duty, and how would the on-call manager support staff if problems arose?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 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, January 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; care had improved, but inspectors could not yet be sure the improvements would last.
This was an announced focused inspection on 25 November 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, staff, the manager and a relative. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Responsive. Records were more accurate, risks were better managed, medicines were given as prescribed, people could access healthcare and people had more choice about activities and daily life.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. The provider had improved its checks and management systems, but it was too early to show that good practice would be consistent and sustained. Some activity improvements had also not been fully established because of COVID-19 restrictions.
The previous overall rating was Inadequate and the home had been in special measures. It was no longer Inadequate or in special measures after this inspection, but the overall rating became Requires Improvement.
Better risk management
Care records contained detailed information about risks and staff knew how to respond. Inspectors saw staff supporting a person appropriately to reduce the risk of falling.
“People's records now contained current and detailed information about identified risks to their safety and wellbeing.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Records, stock checks and medicines balances showed that people received their prescribed medicines consistently. Medicines were stored safely and staff competency was checked.
“Our checks of medicines stocks, balances and records showed people consistently received the medicines prescribed to them.” from the report
Better access to healthcare
Staff understood people's health conditions and followed advice from healthcare professionals. Virtual appointments were used when face-to-face appointments were not possible.
“People were able to see healthcare professionals when they needed to.” from the report
More personalised activities and contact
People had more say over activities and were supported with home activities, shopping trips and video calls during lockdown restrictions.
“Since our last inspection people had been given more choice and say about the activities they would like to do and which reflected their interests.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider had introduced more regular audits and checks, and used accidents, incidents and complaints to identify learning for staff.
“There were regular audits and checks of key aspects of the service and prompt action was taken to address any issues identified through these checks.” from the report
Improvements not yet proven to last
needs fixingThe provider had made substantial changes, but inspectors could not yet judge whether these would be maintained consistently over time. This was the reason the well-led rating remained Requires Improvement.
“However, this meant at the time of this inspection there was not yet enough evidence of consistent good practice over time.” from the report
Activities were not fully established
minorSome planned improvements to activities had not been fully embedded. COVID-19 restrictions limited opportunities for people to take part in activities in the community.
“Some of the planned improvements around the provision of activities had not yet been fully embedded due to the current COVID19 pandemic and wider restrictions in terms of safe access to the community.” from the report
Limited space for social distancing
needs fixingThe physical environment did not always allow people to keep apart easily. The report says people had en-suite rooms if they needed to isolate.
“Due to limitations with the physical environment people could not always easily socially distance.” from the report
- 01What evidence can you show that the improvements found in 2020 have been maintained since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that staff are awake and available at night, following the concern reported to CQC about night staff sleeping?
- 03What activities are now available in the community and at home, and how are residents involved in choosing them?
- 04How would you manage infection risks if people cannot easily socially distance in the building?
- 05How do you make sure advice from healthcare professionals is recorded and followed for each resident?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, with infection prevention and control also checked; Caring was not covered in this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 January 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.
Every inspection of Restoration Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Restoration Residential Care Home →
- January 2021Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Restoration Residential Care Home →
- March 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2013.
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 Sutton
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.