CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Mungo's Broadway - 2 Hilldrop Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2021
St Mungo's Broadway - 2 Hilldrop Road was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practice, with minor improvements addressed soon afterwards.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 28 January 2021. It was a targeted inspection because of the coronavirus pandemic, looking at infection prevention and control in the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, managed visitors, followed shielding and social distancing rules, and had an up-to-date infection-control policy. People with COVID-19 symptoms were asked to test and self-isolate, with signs showing when isolation would end.
The home was allowing friends and family to visit outside. Inspectors gave the home resources to improve its approach to new admissions and the layout of communal furniture. The report says these points were addressed shortly after the visit. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Isolation support
People with COVID-19 symptoms were asked to test and self-isolate. Individual bathrooms and clear signs helped people understand when their isolation would end.
“This simple signage reassured people. It reminded those who were self-isolating and others in the service when they would be able to socialise with their peers again.” from the report
Social bubbles
When people found social isolation difficult, the home created designated social bubbles. Staff supported these groups with food, fluids and other needs.
“Staff were allocated to support the bubble with food, fluids and other needs people might have.” from the report
Infection-control arrangements
Inspectors were assured about the home's use of PPE, access to testing, visitor arrangements, hygiene practices and its infection-control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Outdoor visits
Friends and family were allowed to visit outside the building during the pandemic. The report says this helped reduce social contact and the risk of spreading coronavirus.
“The service allowed visits from friends and families throughout the pandemic. This took place outside of the building.” from the report
New admissions and communal furniture
needs fixingInspectors identified areas where the approach to new admissions and the layout of communal furniture could be developed. The report says these points were addressed shortly after the inspection.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach in relation to new admissions and the layout of furniture in the communal areas.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the arrangements for new admissions after the inspection?
- 02What changes were made to the layout of communal furniture, and how is this kept under review?
- 03How are people with COVID-19 symptoms currently supported to test and self-isolate?
- 04How are visits from family and friends managed now?
- 05How does the home currently provide PPE and testing for people living and working there?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection of the home's care quality and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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, August 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but safety checks and as-required medicines records still needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 30 May and 5 June 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, staff and managers, and checked care, medicines, staffing, recruitment and other records.
The home had improved since earlier inspections in December 2016 and May 2017. People said staff were kind, respectful and helpful. Inspectors found person-centred care plans, suitable staffing, good support with health needs and a management team that was making ongoing improvements.
The safety rating was Requires Improvement. Medicines were safer than before, but some records for as-required medicines were inaccurate or unclear. Some risk assessments and fire drill records also needed to be more complete. The other four areas were rated Good, giving an overall rating of Good.
Staffing and safeguarding
Inspectors found enough staff on shifts and suitable recruitment checks. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“Robust recruitment procedures in place ensured that only suitable staff worked with people.” from the report
Improving management
The home had made visible progress since previous inspections. People and staff felt listened to, and quality monitoring systems were being used.
“At this inspection we found that the service had successfully completed the improvement plan formulated following previous concerns raised by the CQC and the Local Authority.” from the report
As-required medicines
needs fixingSome as-required medicine stock levels and administration records did not match. Some medicines were still listed on records even though they were not in stock.
“We found a few issues in the management of PRN's.” from the report
Risk and fire records
needs fixingSome risk assessments were not detailed enough, including one about behaviour and one completed after the lift broke down. Fire drill records could not initially be found.
“Some improvements were needed to ensure all risk assessment was equally robust.” from the report
Dietary information for chefs
needs fixingInformation about some people's dietary needs was not always available to changing kitchen staff. A folder was being prepared to address this.
“The information about people's dietary needs and choices was not always readily available to the chefs.” from the report
Activities
minorSome people felt there was not enough to do after the home lost its activities coordinator. The home was reviewing how staff would provide activities.
“The provision of social activities at the service was reduced due to the recent changes in staff structure.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that as-required medicines are in stock and that the medicine administration records are accurate?
- 02How are people's risk assessments kept up to date, especially where behaviour or mobility creates extra risks?
- 03Where are fire drill records stored, and when was the most recent drill?
- 04How do chefs receive information about allergies, special diets and other nutritional needs?
- 05What activities are currently available, and how are residents involved in choosing them?
This inspection assessed all five CQC areas and gave ratings for the overall service and each area. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 2018 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 St Mungo's Broadway - 2 Hilldrop Road
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at St Mungo's Broadway - 2 Hilldrop Road →
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Mungo's Broadway - 2 Hilldrop Road →
- June 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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 Islington
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. 74 can care for a couple. 11 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.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.