CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Station Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed, medicines were safely managed and staff were trained in safeguarding. However, one person at risk of choking was left alone while eating even though their care plan required supervision.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and regular supervision. People were supported with food, healthcare, personal choices and legal consent processes.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and friendly. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity, supported to make choices and helped to maintain independence and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised, and people were involved in regular reviews. People took part in community activities, but inspectors did not see activities inside the home for people who did not go out.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers understood their responsibilities and used audits and an improvement plan to address concerns. However, poor staff morale and concerns about working relationships remained.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but one person was left without required mealtime supervision.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 May 2019. The inspection was brought forward after concerns about care, medicines, risk management and staffing. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good. People and relatives described staff as kind and dedicated. Medicines were managed safely, staff had relevant training, and people were supported with healthcare, choices, relationships and activities in the community.
There were still some weaknesses. One person at risk of choking was left without the supervision required by their care plan. Staff morale and working relationships were poor, and some minor concerns and improvements were not recorded. The home was working through an improvement plan with support from the local authority.
Kind relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Staff knew people's preferences and supported them with warmth, dignity and respect.
“People and relatives told us the staff were kind, friendly and dedicated.” from the report
Safe medicines
Records showed that medicines were given as prescribed. Storage, stock checks and guidance for as-required medicines were also in place.
“Medicines Administration Records (MARs) seen on inspection indicated that people received their medicines as prescribed, with no errors or gaps in recording.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans explained people's needs, preferences and the support staff should provide. People had regular meetings with their key workers.
“Care plans were detailed, person centred and reviewed on a regular basis.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to take part in activities and appointments outside the home, based on their interests and needs.
“People were supported to attend and engage in activities in the local community which were of interest or benefit to them.” from the report
Mealtime supervision
seriousOne person who was at risk of choking was left unattended while eating, despite their care plan saying they should be supervised. Inspectors told managers, who said they would address it.
“We observed that this person was left unattended by staff at a mealtime whilst they were eating despite their care records stating that they should be supervised when eating.” from the report
Staff morale
needs fixingSome staff said relationships between staff and managers were poor and that work was not always shared effectively. Managers said they were addressing this through meetings, supervision, training and performance management.
“Overall staff morale was poor with concerns raised about staff and management working relationships.” from the report
Activities inside the home
minorInspectors did not see activities taking place inside the home for people who did not go out. Managers said they would review this.
“We did not observe any activities taking place within the home for people who did not go out.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure people at risk of choking receive the supervision stated in their care plans?
- 02What changes have been made to improve staff morale and working relationships?
- 03How do you record minor concerns raised in residents' meetings, and check that agreed improvements are completed?
- 04What activities are available inside the home for people who do not go out?
- 05What progress has been made on the service improvement plan and the concerns identified by the local authority?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service covering all five CQC questions, brought forward because of concerns about care, medicines, risk management and staffing. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 July 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.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Station Road rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, with some staff relationship and communication issues.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 December 2017. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, respected and supported. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, detailed care plans, regular activities and access to health professionals.
The home had improved since the 2015 inspection, when the Safe rating required improvement because urgent electrical work had not been completed. The provider later supplied evidence that this work was done. Inspectors also noted an ongoing hot water problem in the self-contained flat, with contractors working on it during the visit.
Inspectors heard negative feedback from staff about working relationships and the staff culture. Managers said they knew about this and were working on it. Inspectors said it had not affected the quality of care people received.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's individual needs and support person-centred care. Recruitment checks had also been completed.
“People were supported by sufficient staff to meet their individual needs and promote person centred care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, abilities, interests and goals. They were reviewed when people's circumstances changed.
“Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated as changes occurred.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People described staff as caring and respectful. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found people were involved in decisions about their support.
“We observed kind and caring interactions between staff, the registered manager, quality lead and people who used the service.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and to develop or maintain independence, including cooking, work and holidays.
“People were supported to engage in a range of activities which was varied and based on the person's interests.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records had no omissions in the sample checked. Staff received training and regular competency checks.
“We checked the medicines administration records (MAR) and saw these has been completed and signed with no omissions in recording.” from the report
Staff working relationships
needs fixingInspectors received negative feedback about the staff culture and poor working relationships. Managers knew about the issue and said they were working to address it.
“However, we received negative feedback from staff regarding the staff culture at the home and instances of poor staff working relationships.” from the report
Hot water problem
needs fixingThere was an ongoing hot water problem in the self-contained flat. Contractors were working to fix it during the inspection, and the problem was more serious than first thought.
“On the day of the inspection, external contractors were working at the home to rectify the problem which was more serious than originally anticipated.” from the report
Family communication
minorOne relative said communication between the home and family could be improved. Managers agreed a communication action plan with that relative.
“A relative gave us feedback regarding improving communications between the service and the family.” from the report
- 01Has the hot water problem in the self-contained flat been fully repaired, and how was disruption to residents managed?
- 02What actions were taken to improve staff working relationships and the staff culture?
- 03How will the home make sure staff concerns do not affect residents' care?
- 04What communication arrangements will be agreed with families, and how will they be reviewed?
- 05Have there been any further electrical, gas, fire or water safety issues since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; four people's care plans and risk assessments and five staff files were checked. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 January 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 Station Road
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
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 6 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 Enfield
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. 79 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.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.