CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Star Road Respite Service
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but infection-control arrangements were not always followed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 November 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience visited the home. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care plans, medicines records, training, recruitment and management records.
People were generally supported by kind and skilled staff. Inspectors found good care in the effective, caring and responsive areas. Staff supported people with their choices, communication, health needs, meals, activities and community visits.
The main weakness was infection control. Some staff and visitors were not wearing masks, and people coming from the community were not asked to take COVID-19 tests. The provider acted promptly after this was raised. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, meaning some important improvements were still needed.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found that staff were warm, patient and attentive. People were treated with dignity and respect.
“People received respectful and caring support. Staff members showed warmth and respect when interacting with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs and preferences clearly. Staff knew how to adapt support for each person.
“People's care plans set out a clear profile with essential information about their needs and preferences to help new or temporary staff see quickly how best to support them.” from the report
Enough trained staff
The home had enough staff to keep people safe and support activities. Staff had relevant training, supervision and induction.
“The service had enough staff to support people safely and meet their needs.” from the report
Activities and community time
People were supported to enjoy activities at home and in the community, including trips, hobbies and contact with family and friends.
“Staff supported people to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests when they came to stay.” from the report
Infection-control arrangements
seriousInspectors saw staff and visitors without face masks, and people arriving from the community were not tested for COVID-19. This meant the home could not always identify infection quickly and take action to protect people.
“We observed a number of staff at the service not wearing face masks.” from the report
- 01What infection-control and COVID-19 testing procedures are now used for people arriving from the community?
- 02How do you make sure staff and visitors follow the current mask and personal protective equipment arrangements?
- 03What actions from the improvement plan have been completed since the inspection?
- 04How are repairs to the shower tiles and shower enclosure edge being followed up?
- 05How will you make sure support continues to match each person's communication needs, routines and preferred activities?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, with particular attention to infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2023 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, October 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but inconsistent training, communication, activities and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 September 2019. One inspector met the five people staying at the home, observed care and checked the building. They also spoke with staff and the manager, reviewed six care records and checked training and monitoring records. After the visit, they received feedback from six relatives and three professionals.
People were generally happy and were treated kindly and respectfully. The home was judged Good for safety and caring. Medicines, risk assessments, safeguarding and staffing levels were generally managed safely, although the home relied on agency staff because of vacancies.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, responsive and well-led were all Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps in staff training, communication, activities, healthcare follow-up and the response to concerns. The last overall rating was Good, published on 22 March 2017.
People were kept safe
Risk assessments, safeguarding procedures, environmental checks and personal evacuation plans were in place. Inspectors found improvements in medicines management since the previous inspection.
“People were safely cared for and the staff had assessed the risks to their safety and wellbeing.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Relatives and professionals said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors observed polite, friendly and thoughtful interactions, and people appeared comfortable.
“The staff were kind and caring towards people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People could choose how to spend their time, help with shopping and meals, and develop daily living skills. Care plans recorded their abilities and preferences.
“People were encouraged and supported to do things for themselves and learn independent living skills.” from the report
Accessible communication
The home used communication passports, pictures, photographs and pictorial menus to help people understand information and express their needs.
“The staff had created 'communication passports' for each person.” from the report
Family involvement
Families could attend quarterly coffee mornings, discuss concerns and share ideas. The home also sought feedback through surveys.
“The registered manager organised quarterly coffee mornings for family members to visit and discuss the service, any concerns they had and ask any questions.” from the report
Staff training gaps
needs fixingStaff had not received specific training about autism, sensory needs and learning disabilities. Inspectors said this could limit how well staff supported people with these needs.
“The staff had not received specific training regarding autism, sensory needs and learning disabilities.” from the report
Poor communication
needs fixingFamilies and professionals reported that messages and important information were not always passed on correctly. Conflicting information and missed bookings sometimes affected people's stays.
“The majority of people who gave us feedback about the service told us that there was a problem with communication.” from the report
Activities were not consistent
needs fixingSome people did not receive activities suited to their sensory, communication or physical needs. One person was observed spending most of the day without activities.
“One relative told us that whilst their relative was staying at the service they were left without any structured activities for three days.” from the report
Concerns were not always acted on
needs fixingOne person said a concern was not dealt with properly and the same problem happened again. Inspectors also found an example of food being given that a person did not like.
“One person told us they had raised concerns but these had not been responded to appropriately.” from the report
Healthcare follow-up
needs fixingSome healthcare professionals said referrals were not always made promptly and their guidance was not always followed. This made it harder to monitor some people's changing health needs.
“The professionals also said that the staff did not always follow their guidance and therefore it had been difficult to monitor changes in some people's health needs.” from the report
- 01What specific training have staff completed about autism, sensory needs and learning disabilities, and how do you check they can apply it?
- 02How will you make sure each person receives suitable activities, especially people with limited communication or physical disabilities?
- 03How are messages from families and healthcare professionals recorded, passed to the right staff and checked for action?
- 04What has changed to prevent concerns or complaints from happening again when a problem has been identified?
- 05How many permanent staff vacancies remain, and how will you reduce reliance on agency staff?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good, published on 22 March 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 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 Star Road Respite Service
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
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 Hounslow
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 £1,270 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.