Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Smitham Downs Road

Goodpublished 25 November 2025, 10 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, June 2022

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but serious problems with medicines, legal consent and management oversight.

This was an unannounced inspection on 27 April 2022. Two inspectors and a CQC medicines team member spoke with staff, observed care, checked records and spoke with relatives after the visit. The inspection covered all five CQC questions.

People were treated kindly and with respect. Staff understood people's communication needs, supported activities and helped people access healthcare and their local community. There were enough staff, and the home was clean, well maintained and suitable for people's needs.

However, medicines records and processes were not always safe. Two people were being restricted without the required legal applications. Management checks had not found or fixed these problems, and some safety and care records were inaccurate or out of date. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with Safe, Effective and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    Staff were warm, patient and attentive. They gave people time, respected privacy and noticed when someone needed space.

    “People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans reflected people's individual needs, communication styles, sensory needs and aspirations. People were involved in reviewing their plans.

    “People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations” from the report
  • Activities and independence

    People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, learn everyday skills and build confidence and independence.

    “People had the opportunity to try new experiences, develop new skills and gain independence.” from the report
  • Enough staff and good infection control

    Staffing levels and skills matched people's needs, including one-to-one support. The home had effective infection control and cleaning arrangements.

    “The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unsafe medicines processes

    serious

    Inspectors found several medicines problems. These included medicines placed in an unlabelled tool, handwritten records and incomplete or out-of-date guidance for PRN medicines.

    “Staff did not always follow systems and processes to make sure people received the right medicine, at the right dose and at the right time.” from the report
  • Restrictions without legal authorisation

    serious

    Two people lacked the required legal authorisation for restrictions on their liberty. The provider said the necessary applications were made after the inspection.

    “This issue meant these two people were being unlawfully deprived of their liberty which was a breach of Regulation 11” from the report
  • Weak management oversight

    serious

    Changes in managers meant audits and checks did not identify or resolve important problems. A known missing fire extinguisher remained outstanding at the inspection.

    “The provider's governance processes and oversight of the service had not always been effective.” from the report
  • Incomplete and inaccurate records

    needs fixing

    Some medicines, hospital and safety records were inaccurate, out of date or difficult to find. Improvement plans did not always include dates or timescales.

    “Some records maintained by the service were inaccurate or out of date and current information not easily accessible.” from the report
  • Communication with relatives

    needs fixing

    Relatives said communication had deteriorated during management changes, making it harder to feel reassured about their family member's care.

    “Relatives told us the management changes had led to a deterioration in the quality of communication from the service.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to ensure PRN medicines guidance is accurate, complete and reviewed on time?
  2. 02Are all medicines now kept in their original packaging, with accurate administration records?
  3. 03Were the required DoLS applications for the two people submitted, and what is the current legal position?
  4. 04Has the missing fire extinguisher been replaced, and have all fire safety servicing checks been completed?
  5. 05Who is now responsible for management, and how are audits checking that the problems identified by CQC have been fixed?

This was an unannounced first inspection of the registered service and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous provider's rating was Good, published on 17 April 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Smitham Downs Road

4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. June 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Smitham Downs Road →

  2. April 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  3. September 2016Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  4. December 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
  5. December 2020

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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”
Marie-anne B., about Carla A.
“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”
Bianca V., about Terry S.
See live-in carers near CroydonProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.