CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at SCASS Ltd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had appropriate risk assessments, medicines records were structured and accurate, and there were enough staff. The home was clean and infection control arrangements were found to be effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, regular supervision and support. People were supported with healthcare, food, hydration, communication and daily choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind, patient and respectful interactions. People were supported to make decisions, maintain privacy and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's preferences and communication needs. People could take part in activities they enjoyed and relatives knew how to complain.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management systems, audits, staff meetings and training checks had improved. The home had an action plan and an open approach to staff and relatives.
What inspectors found, February 2023
SCASS Ltd was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some room to improve food choice and written feedback.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 7, 8 and 13 December 2022. One inspector reviewed three care records, medicines information, risk assessments, staff records and policies. They spoke with one person, staff, managers and two relatives.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were supported to make choices, stay safe, communicate in their preferred way and take part in activities they enjoyed.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement in September 2019. The earlier breaches had been addressed, and the home was no longer in breach of regulations at this inspection.
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences, histories and communication needs. Care plans were written around each person.
“People with a learning disability or autistic people received individual care planned around them, records confirmed this.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking calmly and supporting people with patience, dignity and respect.
“People were treated with kindness and respect by staff who were patient and understanding.” from the report
Improved safety
Risk assessments, medicines management, safety checks and infection control had improved since the previous inspection.
“Medicines management had improved, and the recording of medicines was structured and accurate.” from the report
Better oversight
The provider had introduced an action plan and improved audits, training checks, meetings and supervision.
“The service had implemented a detailed action plan to improve the service since the last inspection.” from the report
Food choice
minorStaff said there could be more choice in the food offered. Managers said alternatives could be provided if people did not want the main meal.
“Staff told us they would eat the food but there could be more choice for people to provide a balance.” from the report
Written feedback
minorThe home was still working out the best way to record feedback from relatives and health professionals. Feedback forms had been withdrawn during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The service was still working on the best way to capture written feedback from relatives and health professionals.” from the report
- 01What food choices and alternatives are available each day, especially for people with diabetes or swallowing risks?
- 02How will you collect and act on written feedback from relatives and health professionals?
- 03How are each person's communication methods and personal preferences kept up to date, including for respite stays?
- 04How do you check that medicines competencies and risk assessments remain current for all staff and people using the service?
- 05What changes were made after the previous inspection, and how are you checking that these improvements continue?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with infection prevention and control also checked under Safe; one person was observed and three people's records were reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff but serious gaps in risk management, consent, training, personalised care and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 and 25 July 2019. The inspector spoke with one person, six staff members and three relatives. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was not always safe or effective. Risks linked to diabetes and epilepsy were not fully assessed, medicine training and storage checks were incomplete, hand-washing products were missing and some accident records did not explain how future incidents could be prevented. Staff also lacked some important training and regular supervision.
Care was not always based on people's individual needs, choices or communication methods. The home did not have effective systems to check quality, learn from feedback or identify problems. All five areas were rated Requires Improvement, down from Good at the previous inspection. The provider was asked for an action plan and CQC said it would monitor progress and inspect again.
Staffing and safeguarding
People, relatives and staff said there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff understood safeguarding procedures, and there had been no safeguarding concerns since the previous inspection.
“One person, relatives and staff told us there were enough staff on the shifts to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Relatives described staff as friendly and caring. Inspectors found that staff generally respected people's privacy, dignity, diversity and independence.
“People's privacy was respected, and staff generally provided care in a dignified way.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People's dietary needs, allergies, likes and dislikes were recorded. Staff supported people to access healthcare services and followed recommendations from health professionals.
“People were appropriately supported with their dietary needs.” from the report
Unmanaged health and safety risks
seriousCare plans did not give staff enough information about risks linked to diabetes and epilepsy. Water temperature and legionella checks had not been completed.
“The provider did not always identify, assess and mitigate risks associated with people's healthcare needs.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
seriousSome staff had not completed medicine training or competency checks. Medicine storage temperatures were not recorded, and bathrooms did not have suitable hand-washing products.
“The provider did not always follow appropriate medicines management practices thereby putting people at risk of harm.” from the report
Consent and restrictive arrangements
seriousThe home had not recorded a best-interest decision for a bedroom camera and staff sharing a person's bedroom at night. The manager was not aware of these arrangements.
“However, this person's care plan had no information in relation to these arrangements to confirm whether any decisions made, and action taken were in the best interests of the person.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
seriousThere were gaps in training relevant to the people supported, including learning disability, autism, diabetes, the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Not all staff received the regular one-to-one supervision set out in the home's policy.
“The provider did not ensure all staff received appropriate induction, relevant training and support to enable them to deliver effective care.” from the report
Care was not always personalised
seriousCare plans did not always explain people's communication and behavioural needs. Inspectors saw staff repeatedly saying no instead of using the positive support described in a person's care plan.
“This showed people did not always receive personalised care that met their needs as staff were not given enough information about people's personal needs and preferences.” from the report
Weak quality oversight
seriousAudits did not identify important problems, and feedback from people and relatives was not analysed for themes or trends. Records also had gaps.
“The governance systems in place were not effective in identifying issues and improvement areas and addressing them in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01Have the diabetes and epilepsy risk assessments been completed, and how are staff told what to do in an emergency?
- 02Are all staff now trained and assessed as competent to administer medicines, and are medicine storage temperatures recorded?
- 03How are best-interest decisions recorded for monitoring, night-time support or any other restrictive arrangements?
- 04What training and regular supervision has each staff member completed for learning disability, autism, behaviour, diabetes, the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 05How are care plans now made personalised, and how does the home check that staff use people's preferred communication and positive support methods?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with CQC looking at both the premises and the care provided; all five previous Good ratings were reassessed and rated Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 September 2019 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 SCASS Ltd
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 July 2012.
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 Newham
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 £1,190 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She is a safe pair of hands and her years of experience certainly shine through.”
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
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.