CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Sonesta Nursing Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection control, testing, protective equipment, visiting, admissions and outbreak arrangements. The provider also said it had measures to reduce risks from COVID-19-related staff pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Sonesta Nursing Home Limited was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
The home had systems for testing, vaccination checks, safe hospital admissions and isolation. It had enough protective equipment, trained staff and cleaning schedules. Inspectors said the premises were clean and hygienic.
Visitors used a separate entrance and testing area. They were given information and instructions about protective equipment. Residents could go out with family members, following testing and infection control arrangements.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give a full rating of the quality of care or an overall judgement about the home.
Infection control
Inspectors found good infection prevention arrangements, including testing, protective equipment, cleaning and ventilation.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had cleaning schedules, good ventilation and communal areas arranged to support social distancing.
“The premises looked clean and hygienic throughout. There were cleaning schedules in place and adequate ventilation.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home provided a testing area, separate entrance and protective equipment guidance for visitors. Residents had three named visitors as essential care givers.
“Visitors were also instructed on how to use personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Staff protection
The home checked staff vaccination and COVID-19 testing requirements. Staff had training in using protective equipment.
“Staff had received training in infection prevention and control and how to don and doff PPE.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and what effect have they had on people's care?
- 02How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 03How are residents and visitors currently tested before entering or returning to the home?
- 04What arrangements are now used for visits, including essential care givers and protective equipment?
- 05How do you safely admit people directly from hospital and manage their isolation period?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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, February 2020
Rated Good overall, with kind and safe care, but the home’s leadership and records require improvement.
Inspectors visited without warning on 3 February 2020. They spoke with six people, two relatives and six staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, safety information, complaints, incidents, training and audits.
People told inspectors they felt safe and received caring, personalised support. Staff knew people well, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and people could access healthcare. Food met most people’s needs, although some people’s views about food were less positive.
The main weakness was record keeping and checking. Some care plans and end of life plans had not been reviewed recently. Audits had not found all these gaps, and some mental capacity and recruitment records were incomplete. The overall rating stayed Good, but Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“People and their relatives said people were safe and well protected from the potential risks of abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with warmth, dignity and respect. People were involved in choices about their care and daily life.
“People had areas in the lounge they routinely sat in and we saw their family photos were placed in specific areas so they could see them.” from the report
Skilled health support
Staff supported people with complex health needs and worked with outside health professionals. Inspectors saw safe use of specialist equipment.
“Staff were skilled and competent in supporting people with complex health conditions and the use of specialist equipment” from the report
Stable staff team
The home had an established team and did not use agency staff. Staff knew people’s routines and preferences well.
“There was an established staff team and the home did not use agency staff.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and fresh. Staff had infection control training and access to gloves and aprons.
“The home was clean and fresh throughout with no malodours.” from the report
Care plans were not always updated
needs fixingSome care plans did not reflect changes in people’s needs or show regular reviews. This meant records did not always match the good care inspectors saw.
“For example, not all care plans were regularly reviewed as detailed previously in the report.” from the report
Audits missed record gaps
needs fixingThe home carried out audits, but these did not identify some missing care plan reviews or mental capacity records. The provider sent an improvement plan and reported that improvements had already been made.
“Numerous audits took place covering care plans, medicines and infection control, but the care planning audits had not identified the gaps in reviews.” from the report
End of life plans needed review
needs fixingSome people’s end of life wishes had not been revisited since 2017. The manager said these plans would be reviewed as a priority.
“Therefore, we found some people's end of life care needs had not been reviewed since 2017.” from the report
Mental capacity records were incomplete
needs fixingRecords did not always show that people’s capacity had been assessed for particular decisions. This included decisions about refusing care and involvement in end of life planning.
“However, there was no mental capacity assessment to confirm one person with capacity was knowingly refusing care in line with advice from the tissue viability nurse.” from the report
Some recruitment records were unclear
minorInspectors had no concerns about the safety of recruitment, but some records did not clearly show which references were followed up or record telephone discussions.
“Whilst we had no concerns regarding the recruitment of staff, decisions made regarding which references were pursued were not always clear” from the report
- 01Have all care plans now been reviewed and updated when people’s needs change?
- 02How do you check that audits identify missing care plan reviews and mental capacity assessments?
- 03Have all residents’ end of life wishes been revisited since the inspection, including wishes first discussed in 2017?
- 04How are as-needed medicines now covered by clear instructions for staff?
- 05How do recruitment files now show reference checks and telephone discussions with referees?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 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.
Every inspection of Sonesta Nursing Home Limited
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Sonesta Nursing Home Limited →
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Sonesta Nursing Home Limited →
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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 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.