CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sheringham House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Sheringham House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, with some minor improvements still needed.
Inspectors visited on 28 July 2022. They spoke with the manager, four care and support staff, and a relative by telephone. They reviewed one care plan, medicine records, staff records, and checks on the building and infection control.
The home was safe and well maintained. Previous problems with door locks, the fire alarm and repairs had been fixed. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicine systems, risk assessments, safeguarding procedures and infection control arrangements.
Care was personalised and respectful. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, attend health appointments, follow their interests and keep in touch with family and friends. The home also supported a person to move towards more independent accommodation.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good. This means inspectors found the service was meeting the relevant requirements at the time of the inspection. The previous rating was Requires Improvement, and the earlier breaches had been resolved.
Improved safety
Problems with the front and back door locks and the fire alarm had been fixed. A local contractor was available to deal with repairs promptly.
“By the time of this inspection, these issues had been resolved.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, interests and goals. Staff supported people to make choices and become more independent.
“People received support that was person-centred.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Blinds had been fitted to protect privacy, and staff encouraged people to manage parts of their daily lives for themselves.
“People were well treated and supported.” from the report
Support with independence
The home helped a person work towards moving to more independent accommodation nearer their family, with professionals involved in the arrangements.
“People were supported to achieve positive outcomes, for example improving their health and wellbeing and developing their education and social skills.” from the report
Supportive management
The manager carried out regular checks on medicines, the building, staff training and care records. Staff and relatives gave positive feedback about the management and support.
“The registered manager carried out regular audits and checks of the premises and of records.” from the report
Medicine protocols needed review
needs fixingProtocols for medicines given when needed, such as painkillers, had not been reviewed for some time. The manager said monthly reviews would be put in place.
“We noted the protocols had not been reviewed for some time.” from the report
More infection control signs recommended
minorInspectors were assured about infection prevention but recommended looking into adding more handwashing and PPE signs in bathrooms.
“However, we recommended the provider look into displaying more handwashing and PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) signage in bathrooms.” from the report
Future admissions need careful assessment
needs fixingThere had been no new admissions since the previous inspection. The manager said future assessments would be more thorough, so families should ask how the home checks that it can meet a new person's needs.
“We were assured the provider would carry out more thorough assessments of people's needs in future.” from the report
- 01Have the protocols for medicines given when needed now been reviewed monthly, and how do you check this?
- 02Have you added the recommended handwashing and PPE signs in the bathrooms?
- 03How will you assess a new person's needs before admission and decide whether the home has the right staff, skills and resources?
- 04How many people currently live at the home, and what staffing is available on each shift?
- 05How will you support my relative's personal goals, independence, activities and contact with family?
This was an announced follow-up inspection after the previous Requires Improvement rating; inspectors assessed all five key questions and infection prevention and control, but could not speak directly with the person living at the home because they were away and moving. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 August 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, August 2021
Sheringham House was rated Requires Improvement, with unsafe premises, weak admission checks and problems with privacy and management.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. It took place on 9 June 2021 after concerns about the premises, the environment and overall safety. Inspectors spoke with one person, staff and relatives, and reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines, maintenance and management records.
The most serious concerns were about safety. Front and back door locks were broken and left unsecured for weeks. The fire alarm panel had also been faulty for nearly three months. Inspectors said these delays left people and staff at risk of harm or injury.
The home did provide enough staff. Staff were trained in medicines, safeguarding and supporting behaviour that could be challenging. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, relationships and communication. However, the home did not always assess whether it could meet a person's needs before admission, and people's privacy was affected by missing blinds and curtains.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe was rated Inadequate, while Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The home had no registered manager at the inspection, and CQC required an action plan and said it would monitor progress.
Enough staff
Inspectors found the correct staffing levels, including extra staff when people needed support in the community. Recruitment checks were also completed safely.
“We saw there were the correct the numbers of staff on duty and when people required two members of staff with them.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received training in medicines, safeguarding, autism, learning disabilities and safe physical intervention. Their competency and refresher training were monitored.
“Staff were supported with an induction and the appropriate training so they could carry out their roles.” from the report
Support for choices
People chose meals and activities and were supported to maintain relationships and follow their interests. One person was supported to visit the seaside.
“People were supported and encouraged to maintain relationships and pursue their interests to help them in their daily lives.” from the report
Health and communication
People had access to health professionals, and care plans included hospital information. Communication needs were recorded and easy-read information was provided.
“People's care plans contained hospital passports and emergency grab sheets which contained vital information about them, such as their health and medical conditions and preferred method of communication.” from the report
Unsecured premises and faulty fire alarm
seriousThe front and back doors could not be shut or locked, and the fire alarm panel had been faulty for nearly three months. Inspectors said this created serious safety and security risks.
“This left service users and staff at serious risk and the premises at risk of damage as no one would be aware there was a fire in the building.” from the report
Admission assessment
seriousThe home admitted one person whose needs staff could not manage safely. The placement broke down after two weeks.
“This meant they did not effectively assess from the information they did receive, how they would be able to meet the person's needs and preferences.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
seriousMissing blinds and curtains meant people could be seen from outside, particularly when lights were on in the evening.
“This meant people in the home were not able to live in the home in privacy and with dignity.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's quality systems did not ensure urgent repairs were dealt with promptly. There had also been several management changes and no permanent registered manager.
“This meant there was an overall lack of oversight, good governance and consistent leadership to ensure robust procedures were in place to deal with concerns and emergencies.” from the report
Medicine storage temperature
minorThe medicine storage room reached temperatures above the home's stated limit, and staff had no recorded guidance about what action to take.
“We recommend the provider follows best practice guidance on maintaining and controlling the room temperature where medicines are stored.” from the report
- 01Have the front porch door, back door and fire alarm system all been repaired and tested, and how quickly are new faults now dealt with?
- 02How do you assess a young person's needs before admission, especially when previous placements or records show high-risk behaviour?
- 03What has been done to make sure every person's bedroom and shared areas provide privacy, including suitable blinds or curtains?
- 04Who is currently responsible for the home while the manager's registration application is being processed?
- 05How do you keep the medicine storage room within the required temperature range, and what action is taken when it becomes too warm?
This was the first full inspection of the care home and covered all five CQC questions, including infection control; the home did not provide end of life care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 August 2021 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 Sheringham House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 May 2020.
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 Redbridge
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 £1,250 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“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.