CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Spring Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. They found screening, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and arrangements for preventing or managing outbreaks.
- 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?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Spring Lane: targeted infection control inspection found good COVID-19 precautions, but the service was inspected but not rated.
Inspectors visited the home on 26 February 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It looked at infection prevention and control, rather than the full range of care.
Inspectors found strong visitor screening. Visitors had their temperature checked, completed a COVID-19 risk assessment, used protective equipment and could have a rapid test. Visits had to be booked in advance.
The home helped people keep in touch with relatives and friends while reducing infection risks. Inspectors also found the home clean, with regular cleaning schedules and audits.
The home was inspected but not rated. The report gives an infection control assessment, not an overall judgement about the quality of care.
Visitor screening
Visitors had to book appointments and were screened on arrival. They had temperature checks, completed a COVID-19 risk assessment, received protective equipment and could have rapid testing.
“Robust screening processes were in place for visitors to the service.” from the report
Keeping people connected
The home helped people maintain contact with relatives and friends through video calls, telephone calls and conversations through a large lounge window.
“People maintained social contact with their relatives and friends, for example, through virtual video calls using an iPad and by telephone.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors saw regular cleaning and found the environment clean. Cleaning schedules and audits covered frequently touched areas.
“The environment was clean and free from malodour and the communal areas were regularly cleaned.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not say what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What resources did inspectors ask you to use to develop your infection prevention and control approach?
- 02How are visitors currently screened, tested and supported to use protective equipment?
- 03How do you help residents maintain contact with relatives and friends?
- 04What are the home's current arrangements for cleaning frequently touched areas?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for effective, caring, responsive and well-led care?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 March 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.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Spring Lane rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some waits for call bells and incomplete records of lessons learned.
The unannounced inspection took place on 11 December 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care and looked at care plans, medicines records, staffing files, meeting minutes and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness and dignity, had individual care plans, received support with medicines and healthcare, and had access to activities.
At the previous inspection in October 2017, the home was rated Requires Improvement. There had been a breach about safe medicines management and concerns about leadership and governance. Inspectors said these issues had been addressed by this inspection.
Medicines safety
Medicines records covering receipt, storage, administration and disposal were satisfactory and accurate. Medicines were audited regularly, and action was taken when errors occurred.
“We checked the management of medicines and saw satisfactory and accurate records in relation to the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines at the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared relaxed with staff. Inspectors saw respectful and supportive relationships, with attention to privacy, dignity, personal preferences and independence.
“We observed staff treating people with respect, kindness and dignity.” from the report
Individual care and activities
Care plans described people's needs and preferences and were updated when needs changed. People were offered activities that supported their social and spiritual needs.
“People's care was individualised and the management and staff reviewed people's needs and made changes to people's care provision when required.” from the report
Improved leadership
The management structure had been reviewed and staff said they had more clarity and support. Regular audits, meetings and surveys were used to plan improvements.
“Since that inspection the provider had recruited a new manager and reviewed and streamlined the management structure.” from the report
Call bell waits
needs fixingSome people said they waited for support after using the call bell. This was particularly reported at night and in the early morning, and the manager said they would look into it.
“Some people felt there could be more staff and told us they sometimes had to wait for support if they used the call bell.” from the report
Lessons from incidents
needs fixingThe home had systems to learn from falls, complaints and other events, but the lessons were not always written down. The manager said future records would include lessons learned.
“The provider had systems in place to learn lessons to make improvement when things went wrong. However, these were not always recorded.” from the report
Communication in meetings
minorOne person with a health-related communication difficulty found it hard to take part in meetings. The manager said staff would meet people beforehand so their views could be discussed without rushing them.
“They told us that it was difficult taking part in the meetings as they could only speak very slowly.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells answered now, especially at night and in the early morning?
- 02How do you record lessons learned after falls, complaints and other incidents, and how do you check that actions are completed?
- 03How do you help people with communication difficulties take part in meetings and decisions about their care?
- 04How are medicines audits carried out now, and how do you make sure any errors are acted on promptly?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with an additional detailed review of oral health support as part of a national review. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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 Spring Lane
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 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 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.