CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hyde Close Flats
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough competent staff, safe recruitment checks, safe medicines practice and detailed risk assessments. Infection control measures were increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Relatives described staff as kind and caring. Records showed that people were involved in decisions, and their dignity, privacy, choices and relationships were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture, regular communication with relatives and systems to monitor quality and safety. Staff spoke positively about the management team.
What inspectors found, December 2020
SENSE - Hyde Close Flats was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-led care, but this was a focused inspection.
Inspectors visited on 1 December 2020. They spoke with the manager and three support staff, reviewed three care records and three staff files, and examined medicines, infection control and quality records. They also spoke by telephone with nine relatives.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines practice and good infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Relatives described staff as kind and said people were safe and well supported.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in 2017, and these three ratings remained Good. This inspection did not assess Effective or Responsive.
Safe staffing and recruitment
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“We saw there was enough competent staff on duty.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely. Staff had training and competency checks before administering them.
“Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medication when they should.” from the report
Infection control
The home increased cleaning, had suitable protective equipment and followed infection control practices during the pandemic.
“At this inspection we found that the home was managing infection prevention and control well especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Kind and personalised care
Staff knew people well and supported their choices, independence, dignity and relationships with family and friends.
“People's care records contained information about people's background, history, what was important to them and their choices and preferences.” from the report
Good communication and oversight
Relatives received regular updates, and the home used audits, meetings and reviews to monitor care and improve the service.
“Relatives told us that communication was good and that they were updated regularly especially during the pandemic.” from the report
New manager still applying for registration
minorThe home had a new manager who had not yet been registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection. The report says the registration process was under way.
“The service had a new manager who had not yet been registered with the Care Quality Commission, but was in the process of doing so.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the manager's CQC registration since the inspection?
- 02How do you assess whether care is effective, given that this inspection did not cover the Effective question?
- 03How do you check that the service responds to people's changing needs, given that Responsive was not covered?
- 04How are relatives kept updated and involved in care reviews?
- 05What infection control measures remain in place, and how are staff checked on their use of protective equipment?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led, including infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic; Effective and Responsive were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 2020 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some agency staffing and family involvement issues to keep under review.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 25 July 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with staff, relatives and health professionals, and reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records and safety documents.
The home supported 17 people in four flats, with care for people including those with learning and sensory disabilities and autism. Inspectors found robust individual risk assessments, safe medicines management, suitable staffing, clean premises and staff who understood safeguarding.
Care was kind, respectful and tailored to each person. People had detailed care plans, meaningful activities, healthy food and support to make choices. The home had a registered manager and strong systems for checking quality.
All five areas were rated Good. The previous inspection in November 2015 rated the home Requires Improvement and found problems with risk assessments and staff supervision. Inspectors found these areas had improved and that the home was no longer in breach of the staffing regulations.
Individual risk planning
Risk assessments were detailed and tailored to each person. They included specific ways to reduce risks and support people safely.
“Risk assessments were robust and tailored for each individual and incorporated into detailed care plans about how each person could be supported safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw patient and gentle interactions. Staff understood how people communicated and supported their dignity and privacy.
“Throughout the day of inspection we observed kind and caring interactions from care staff towards people.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, both inside and outside the home. Activity plans explained the help each person needed.
“Care staff were proactive and organised in supporting people to fulfil their days with activities that had been identified as meaningful to them.” from the report
Improved staff support
Staff supervision had improved since the previous inspection. Training included areas linked to the needs of people living in the home.
“At this inspection we saw evidence in staff personnel files that supervision was taking place with supervision notes reflecting conversations about staff performance, training, and the safety and needs of the people in the home.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed incidents and made changes, including extra checks and support for staff with recording injuries and incidents.
“This showed the service had reflected on the incident and learned from it.” from the report
Use of agency staff
needs fixingThe home used agency staff because it had struggled to recruit people with the right skills. It said agency staff were familiar with the people and shadowed a shift, but families should check how this works in practice.
“they had struggled to recruit appropriate staff with the relevant skills” from the report
Staffing rota
needs fixingThe manager was still reviewing whether the staffing rota was effective enough for people's individual needs.
“The registered manager was looking at how the staffing rota could be more effective in supporting people based on their individual needs.” from the report
Family involvement
needs fixingAlthough some families contributed to care plans, the manager recognised that family involvement and communication could be better.
“we need to be better at talking to families and involving them in care planning.” from the report
Privacy of information
minorInspectors noted that information about people's communication needs was displayed in a communal area. They suggested moving it to a staff area for privacy.
“We fed back to the registered manager this might be better placed in a staff area rather than a communal living space for privacy reasons.” from the report
- 01How often are agency staff used, and what experience and training do they have with the needs of people living here?
- 02How does the staffing rota make sure each person's individual needs are covered, including when people go out?
- 03How will families be involved in reviewing and updating their relative's care plan?
- 04What changes were made after the incident involving an injury, and how are staff checked on their recording of incidents?
- 05Has information about people's communication needs been moved from communal areas to a private staff area?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating, with records, observations and feedback from staff, relatives and health professionals reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 2017 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 Hyde Close Flats
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodCaring: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014Inspected but not rated
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 2010.
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 Barnet
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 £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on life.”
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.