CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Scott House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from identified risks and staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements and suitable infection control practices.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and included in care plans. Staff received relevant training and regular supervision, and people had access to healthcare and a varied diet.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported them to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's communication needs, preferences and interests. People and relatives knew how to complain and said they were confident concerns would be dealt with.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had improved its quality checks and acted more promptly when issues were found. People, relatives, staff and professionals described the manager and staff team as approachable and supportive.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
The inspection was unannounced and took place from 9 to 16 April 2019. One inspector spoke with seven people, staff, relatives and a health professional. They also reviewed care records, staff files, audits and other records.
The home was supporting 14 people with long-term mental health needs, although it could support up to 19 people. People said they felt safe and liked the staff. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk management and access to healthcare.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in April 2018. Improvements included the environment, staff supervision and quality checks.
People felt safe and supported
People said they were happy living at the home and liked the staff. Relatives also said their family members were well looked after and safe.
“People were happy living at Scott House, they told us they felt safe and liked the staff who supported them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, including their likes, dislikes and care preferences. People were supported to make choices and maintain their independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Improved staff supervision
The home had addressed a previous concern about staff supervision. Staff were now receiving regular, structured supervision that included discussion of their direct work.
“All staff now receive regular supervision with their manager every two months, notes are recorded and discussions include direct work with people using the service.” from the report
Better quality monitoring
The provider had widened its audits to cover medicines, care records, risks, the environment and safety. Action was taken when audits identified improvements were needed.
“Improved auditing systems have been implemented that cover a much wider range of elements of the service.” from the report
Some refurbishment was still unfinished
minorThe planned redecoration and refurbishment had not quite been completed when inspectors visited. The report says the work was almost complete and had reduced previous infection risks.
“The planned programme for the home's redecoration and refurbishment was almost complete at the time of this inspection.” from the report
Further medicines checks were planned
minorMedicines were being administered safely, but the manager said competency checks for all staff who gave medicines were still planned.
“They told us they planned to introduce competency assessments for all staff administering medicines to people.” from the report
- 01Has the redecoration and refurbishment programme now been completed?
- 02Have competency assessments been introduced for every staff member who administers medicines?
- 03How are people's care plans reviewed when their mental health or other needs change?
- 04How will the home help residents record their end of life wishes when this becomes relevant?
- 05What information is now provided through the planned six-monthly newsletter?
This was a planned inspection of all five CQC key questions, with particular follow-up of concerns about the environment, staff supervision and quality monitoring from the April 2018 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 May 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.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but risks from the home's condition and weaknesses in staff support and oversight.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 18 April 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. They looked at care records, staff files, medicines and the building.
People were described as safe, well cared for and involved in their care. Staff were kind, respectful and knew people's preferences. Care plans were detailed, activities were tailored to individuals, and people were supported with healthcare, food, medicines and daily choices.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. The home needed refurbishment because damaged paintwork, missing tiles and mould created an infection risk. Staff did not always receive regular supervision or appraisals. Quality checks did not always lead to problems being fixed promptly.
At the previous inspection in March 2017, the home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas. This inspection found that three areas had fallen to Requires Improvement: Safe, Effective and Well-led.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that staff knew people's needs, preferences and backgrounds.
“Staff treated people with respect and protected their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs. People were involved in planning and were encouraged to be independent.
“The care plans we inspected were comprehensive in that they covered people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs.” from the report
Activities and choices
People chose activities in the home and community. Their timetables included individual interests such as church, shopping, day services and seeing family and friends.
“Each person had a weekly timetable for their activities that set out what they were scheduled to do on a daily basis.” from the report
Building condition and infection risk
seriousSeveral areas needed repair, redecoration and refurbishment. Inspectors saw chipped and flaking paint, missing tiles and mould in bathrooms and the kitchen.
“We saw there is also a risk to people of infection arising in the bathrooms and in the kitchen where tiles were missing and mould was seen to be growing.” from the report
Staff supervision and training
needs fixingSupervision was not consistently provided as required by the home's policy, and not all staff had received training in health and safety, infection control, fire awareness and food hygiene.
“Staff were not always appropriately supported to meet people's needs with training, supervision and appraisals.” from the report
Quality checks did not drive improvements
needs fixingThe home had several audits, but they did not always identify problems or ensure that known issues were dealt with promptly.
“However these audits of the home were not always effective in ensuring change was implemented as required.” from the report
- 01Have all the missing tiles, mould, damaged paintwork and other refurbishment issues identified in the report now been dealt with?
- 02What recent checks show that the home is clean, safe and free from infection risks?
- 03Do all staff now receive supervision at least quarterly and a regular appraisal?
- 04Have all staff completed health and safety, infection control, fire awareness and food hygiene training?
- 05How do managers make sure that audits identify problems and that agreed actions are completed promptly?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the previous March 2017 ratings were Good in all five areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 2018 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 Scott House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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 Croydon
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. 77 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.