CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Somerford Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control arrangements, including testing, hygiene, social distancing and safe admissions.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found several good infection-control measures during the Covid-19 review.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 October 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice in visitor screening, Covid-19 testing, cleaning checks and the use of regular agency staff. The home also had plans for people at higher risk and for people who could not wear masks.
Inspectors were assured that the home was following shielding and social distancing rules, admitting people safely, accessing testing, maintaining hygiene and keeping its infection-control policy up to date.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated result for the five main questions.
Visitor screening
Visitors had to sign in and complete a health questionnaire. People who reported symptoms or risks were not allowed to enter.
“Visitors to the service were required to sign in and complete a questionnaire to help reduce the spread of Covid-19 and other viruses.” from the report
Regular testing
The home had testing kits and regularly tested staff and people living there, including agency staff.
“The service had access to Covid-19 testing kits and carried out regular testing of all staff and people using the service, including agency staff members.” from the report
Cleaning checks
The manager carried out daily infection-control audits, and cleaning schedules were monitored.
“Daily Infection prevention and control (IPC) audits were carried out by the manager to ensure staff maintained good IPC practices.” from the report
Support for people unable to wear masks
The home had plans for people who were exempt from wearing masks. These included staff using protective equipment and alternative communication methods.
“People exempt from wearing masks had clear plans for how they should be supported by staff.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection-control approach. The report does not give further detail about what needed development.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection-control arrangements are in place now, including visitor screening and testing?
- 02How often are infection prevention and control audits carried out, and can families see the results?
- 03What changes were made after inspectors signposted resources to develop the home's approach?
- 04How are people who cannot wear masks supported now, including people who need easy-read or other communication methods?
- 05What are the home's current ratings or inspection findings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the home was inspected but not rated for the other areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 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, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind, person-centred care, with night staffing levels still being tested.
This was the first inspection since the home registered in November 2018. It was unannounced and took place on 19 September 2019. One inspector met all six residents, spoke with three residents and five staff, observed care, and checked care plans, staff records, medicines records, risk assessments and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, were treated with kindness and respect, and were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities.
Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Staff received training and supervision, medicines were checked safely, and the home worked with health professionals. The home used some restrictive interventions, but inspectors found these were used only as a last resort and in a person-centred way.
People felt safe
Residents told inspectors they felt safe with staff. Staff knew how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“People told us they felt safe with the staff and trusted them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's history, preferences, health needs and communication methods. Residents were involved in planning and reviewing their care where possible.
“Care plans gave staff information in areas such as people's background history, likes and dislikes, health and social care needs, care outcomes, and how they would like to be supported.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff treating residents with respect and compassion. Staff supported people's privacy, dignity, equality and independence.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff treating people with respect and compassion.” from the report
Choice and independence
Residents were supported to make choices, develop skills and take part in activities in the home and community.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines records were accurate and regularly audited. Staff received training and competency checks before administering medicines.
“We checked medicines and saw satisfactory and accurate records in relation to the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines for each person.” from the report
Night staffing was still being tested
minorNight staffing had recently reduced from four staff to three. The manager said this arrangement was still in its test phase, so families should ask how it has worked in practice.
“The night staffing levels had only recently been reduced from four to three and the registered manager told us this ratio was still in the test phase.” from the report
- 01How has the reduction in night staffing from four people to three worked since the inspection?
- 02How do you decide when restrictive intervention may be needed, and how do you review whether it can be reduced or stopped?
- 03How will you support my relative to make choices and build independence while managing risks?
- 04How will you adapt communication and activities to my relative's needs and preferences?
- 05How will my family be involved in care plan reviews and kept informed about changes in care or health?
This was an unannounced first inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and looked at both the accommodation and the personal care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 November 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 Somerford Place
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2018.
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 Haringey
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 £1,260 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Violet is a kind and positive, caring person and we are lucky and delighted to have her caring for our 96 year old grandmother.”
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.