CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Roland Residential Care Homes - 231 North Circular Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing and infection control were generally managed safely, but the follow-up to an earlier high-risk fire assessment had not been completed when inspectors visited.
- Effective?
- Good
- The home assessed people's needs before admission and reviewed them. Staff had appropriate training and people received support with food, healthcare and healthier living.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with respect, supported their independence and involved them in decisions. People spoke positively about the care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and activities were provided. However, one person's choices about food, drinks and activities were limited, and food and fluid records were not always completed effectively.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open atmosphere, clear responsibilities and regular audits. Managers worked with other professionals and acted on feedback from inspectors.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with improvements needed around personal choice and some safety checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 September and 18 October 2023. One inspector spoke with four people, staff, managers and a visiting therapist. They observed care and mealtimes, checked the building, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines practice, good healthcare support, respectful staff and regular management checks.
There were some areas to improve. Inspectors recommended that the home strengthen person-centred care, including people's choices about food, drinks and activities. They also found that a follow-up fire risk assessment had not been completed after an earlier assessment rated the building as high risk. The provider arranged a new assessment after this was raised.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe in the home and with the care they received.
“People felt safe within their accommodation and with the care and support they received.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff treated people with dignity and supported them to make choices and build independence.
“Staff cared for people well and treated them with respect, while promoting their independence.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff had induction, ongoing training, supervision and support to carry out their roles.
“Staff received appropriate support to remain competent and be able to carry out their duties effectively.” from the report
Positive management
Inspectors found an open and inclusive atmosphere, with regular checks and shared learning.
“There was an open and inclusive atmosphere at the service.” from the report
Fire safety follow-up
seriousAn earlier building fire risk assessment in 2020 rated the service as high risk. The recommended follow-up assessment had not taken place, although the provider arranged one after inspectors raised this.
“a follow-up assessment as recommended by the contractor had not taken place to check and validate the improvements made.” from the report
Personal choice and records
needs fixingOne person's choices about eating, drinking and activities were limited. Staff did not always record that person's food and fluid intake effectively, and inspectors recommended stronger person-centred care.
“did not always record their food and fluid intake effectively, and their activities were planned in a prescriptive manner.” from the report
Handwashing arrangements
minorA person was supported to wash their hands in the main kitchen sink, which was also used for food preparation and washing dishes. Managers said this should not have happened and would remind staff about hygiene.
“We observed staff supporting a person to wash their hands in the main kitchen sink, which is mainly used for food preparation and washing dishes.” from the report
Meal and snack choices
minorTwo people raised concerns about a lack of choice for cooked breakfasts and snacks. The manager said options were available and would remind staff to offer them routinely.
“2 people spoke to us about a lack of choice regarding cooked breakfasts and snacks.” from the report
- 01What did the follow-up fire safety assessment find, and have all recommended actions been completed?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's choices about meals, drinks and activities are followed rather than planned in a prescriptive way?
- 03How do you check that food and fluid records are complete and accurate?
- 04How do staff offer different breakfast and snack choices routinely?
- 05What arrangements are in place to make sure handwashing is carried out at the separate handwashing sink?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 2023 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection-control arrangements, with limited indoor visiting and social distancing challenges.
This was a targeted inspection on 19 February 2021. Inspectors looked at how well the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infections. The inspection was announced.
Inspectors found that the home had arrangements for screening visitors, testing people and staff, using protective equipment and managing infection risks. The home was clean and hygienic, and staff received training and support during the pandemic.
The home could not offer safe indoor visits to relatives because of its limited space. It offered information about safer alternatives at another location and had a separate garden entrance for visits when the weather allowed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives findings about infection prevention and control, but it does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor screening
Health and social care professionals were screened for symptoms, asked to take lateral flow tests and given protective equipment before entering.
“Where other visitors arrived at the home such as health and social care professionals, they were screened for symptoms of COVID-19, asked to completed lateral flow device tests and provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).” from the report
Testing and monitoring
People living at the home and staff were screened daily for symptoms and had access to regular COVID-19 testing.
“The service monitored and screened people living at the home and staff daily for any signs or symptoms of possible infection.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with cleaning processes based on the provider's infection prevention and control procedures.
“The home was clean and hygienic. Robust cleaning processes in place followed the providers Infection Prevention and Control policy and procedures.” from the report
Staff preparation
Staff received training, support and guidance during the pandemic. Their knowledge and skills were checked through observation and reflection.
“The service ensured all staff received appropriate training, support and guidance throughout the pandemic period.” from the report
Limited indoor visits
minorThe home's limited indoor space meant it could not provide safe indoor visits for relatives. Visits could take place in the garden when the weather allowed, and another location offered alternative arrangements.
“Due to limited availability of indoor space, 231 North Circular Road was unable to facilitate safe visiting for relatives.” from the report
Social distancing was not always possible
minorThe home worked towards social distancing, but its small size and layout made this difficult at times.
“The home worked towards supporting social distancing, but this was not always possible due to the layout and small size of the home.” from the report
- 01How are relatives able to visit now, especially during bad weather?
- 02How is the separate garden area used for visits, and what alternative arrangements are available if it cannot be used?
- 03How are people living at the home and staff screened and tested for infection now?
- 04How does the home manage social distancing given its small size and layout?
- 05How are staff rotas arranged to reduce movement between different homes?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide a full rating of the home or assess the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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 Roland Residential Care Homes - 231 North Circular Road
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Roland Residential Care Homes - 231 North Circular Road →
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Roland Residential Care Homes - 231 North Circular Road →
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 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 Enfield
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 £1,260 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.