CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 27 Bush Hill
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found unsafe risks from hot water and uncovered radiators, weaknesses in medicines management, and incomplete reporting of incidents and safeguarding concerns. Recruitment, staffing levels and infection control were otherwise found to support people's safety.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Not all staff had completed induction and mandatory training, and some training was delivered by people who were not trained to train others. People received healthcare support and could make choices, but some people were dissatisfied with the food and their feedback was not acted on.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and caring, knew people well and supported their independence. People said staff respected their privacy, dignity and day-to-day choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's histories, preferences and needs. People could take part in activities, access the community and maintain relationships, although some complaints were not recorded in line with the home's procedure.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had audits and other monitoring systems, but they did not identify important safety and medicines problems. Management oversight of incidents, safeguarding concerns, complaints and feedback was not effective enough, although the management team acted on issues raised during the inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Roland Residential Care Homes - 27 Bush Hill was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but safety, medicines and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. Inspectors visited on 12 and 19 May 2022, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People and relatives generally said they felt safe and were satisfied with the care. Inspectors found kind staff who knew people well, supported independence and respected privacy. People could access activities, healthcare and support to maintain relationships.
However, inspectors found risks from high water temperatures and uncovered radiators. Medicines records and stock checks were not always accurate. Some incidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints were not recorded or reported properly, and quality checks had failed to identify these problems. The home breached Regulations 12 and 17, and CQC requested an action plan and will monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw kind interactions. People said staff knew them well and respected their privacy and dignity.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff, who knew them well.” from the report
Independence and choice
People were supported to make daily decisions, take part in household tasks and maintain their independence.
“We ask people to help with cooking, help them to feel this is their house and they can do whatever they want.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Recruitment checks were completed, and inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.
“Systems and processes in place supported the recruitment of staff who had been appropriately assessed as safe to work with vulnerable adults.” from the report
Clean environment and infection control
The home was clean, staff used protective equipment appropriately and systems were in place to manage infection risks, including COVID-19.
“People and their relatives told us, and we observed the premises were clean and staff used PPE appropriately.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans described people's preferences and communication needs. People could access activities, pursue interests and see relatives.
“People's care plans were person centred and contained information about their life history, preferences and the people involved in their care.” from the report
Hot water and radiators
seriousWater in bedrooms and a bathroom reached 58 degrees Celsius, above the home's stated maximum of 44 degrees. Uncovered radiators also created a risk of burns.
“Risks relating to hot water temperatures and radiators were not safely managed.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousGuidance for medicines taken when needed was incomplete. Opening dates, body maps and stock records were not always in place or accurate.
“We found examples where the stock of medicines held did not match the records kept by the service.” from the report
Incident and safeguarding reporting
seriousSome incidents and safeguarding concerns were not recorded or referred correctly. Several incidents involving the police and allegations of abuse were not notified to CQC as required.
“We found CQC had not been notified of several allegations of abuse and incidents involving the police as required.” from the report
Quality monitoring
seriousAudits and checks did not identify the safety, medicines, incident, safeguarding and complaint problems found by inspectors.
“However, we found these systems and processes did not identify the issues we found during the inspection.” from the report
- 01What has been done to keep water temperatures below the home's stated safe maximum, and how are these checks now recorded?
- 02Are all radiators now covered, and how is the home checking that this risk remains controlled?
- 03How are medicines taken when needed, opening dates, topical medicines and medicine stock now checked?
- 04How do you make sure incidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints are recorded, referred and notified to CQC when required?
- 05What changes have been made to staff induction, mandatory training and the range of food choices?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the care home covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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.
Every inspection of 27 Bush Hill
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 February 2021.
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.