CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Saivi House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but recruitment checks and some records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 6 October 2022. One inspector met the four people living in the home, spoke with staff, a relative and professionals, and checked care records, medicines, food safety, infection control and the building.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. People were supported by staff who knew them well, respected their choices and helped them access healthcare, activities and local services.
Inspectors found some shortfalls. References from previous care employers were not always obtained, staff were not wearing masks during all interactions, and some health, consent and privacy records were incomplete or insecure. The provider was asked to improve recruitment practice.
Respectful support
Staff knew people's needs and preferences, listened to them and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home where staff were respectful and supportive in their interactions with people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People could choose how to spend their time, where to be, and what and when to eat. Staff supported people to be as independent as possible.
“People could choose how they wanted to spend their time, whether they wanted to be with other people or in their own space and what and when they ate.” from the report
Positive leadership
The home had regular audits and checks. Staff said managers were approachable and they felt supported.
“There was a good governance framework in place. This included a selection of audits and checks carried out regularly and shared by the senior team.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingTwo recruitment files did not show complete references from previous care employers. The provider was recommended to review its recruitment policy and practice.
“Recruitment practices were not consistently safe as some required checks had not been completed before staff worked at the service.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingStaff wore the required protective equipment during personal care, but inspectors saw that masks were not worn during other interactions with people.
“We were not assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingSome health conditions were not recorded in care plans even though people took medicines for them. The manager said this would be corrected.
“Some health conditions were not recorded in people's health care plans despite them taking medicines for the conditions.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingThere was not always written evidence that people, families, advocates or social workers had been involved in care planning.
“There was a lack of written evidence of consent and involvement in care plans.” from the report
Confidential information
minorConfidential care files were kept on an open shelf during the inspection. The manager said they were about to be moved to a secure cupboard.
“People's confidential care files were on a shelf.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure references are obtained from all relevant previous care employers before staff start work?
- 02How do you decide when staff should wear masks, including during communication with residents?
- 03Have all residents' health conditions now been added to their care plans?
- 04How do you record the involvement and consent of residents, families, advocates or social workers in care planning?
- 05Are all confidential care files now stored in a secure cupboard?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the overall rating partly carried over from the 2018 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a targeted inspection on 25 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home. The visit was announced about 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors found that the home had measures for testing, isolation, vaccinations, PPE, cleaning and ventilation. People were supported to leave the home safely, and visitors were tested and escorted to residents' rooms.
The home was rated inspected but not rated overall and for safety. This means the visit did not give a standard quality rating for the home.
Infection control
Inspectors found that the home had suitable measures to prevent and manage COVID-19 infections. The premises were clean, with PPE stations, cleaning stations and ventilation.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.” from the report
Safe admissions
New residents were tested, isolated and tested again. Staff also carried out welfare and mental health checks during isolation.
“People were tested before being admitted then a period of isolation in their room before a further test at the end of the isolation period.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had a testing station for visitors and arrangements to reduce contact with other residents and staff. It also offered video calls for some visitors.
“The home had alternative methods to support social contact for visitors who were not named.” from the report
Supporting people's choices
People were supported to continue activities outside the home safely during the pandemic, including daily testing before leaving.
“The home had responded to peoples' choices and individual needs during the pandemic to help them carry out activities outside the home safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visits currently managed, including visits from people who are not named visitors?
- 03What happens if a new resident needs to move into the home and there is a risk of infection?
- 04How do you manage staffing pressures if staff are absent because of illness or COVID-19?
- 05When were the home's care, support, responsiveness and leadership last fully assessed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not give standard ratings for the other areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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 Saivi House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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 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.