CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Stella & Harry Freedman House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staffing and recruitment were suitable, and systems were in place for safeguarding, medicines, fire safety and infection control. Some mental health risk assessments lacked detail, and insulin had been over-ordered for some people, although action was taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- Needs were assessed before people moved in, and care plans reflected people's choices and needs. Staff were trained, people received support with food and drink, and they had access to health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff spoke positively about the management team. The home used audits, meetings and surveys to monitor quality and gather views, although it was recruiting for a registered manager.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Stella & Harry Freedman House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, but some risk assessments and insulin ordering needed attention.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 11 January 2023. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, checked care and staff records, and reviewed management documents. The inspection included infection prevention and control.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable medicine systems, good access to health professionals, trained staff and care that respected people's choices, dignity and religious needs.
There were two specific shortfalls. Some risk assessments for people with mental health conditions did not contain enough detail, and insulin had been over-ordered for some people. The home took immediate action on both issues, according to the report.
The report only covered Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this inspection. The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 21 June 2018.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and cared for. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe and looked after by the staff.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed, and most staff had worked at the home for many years.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their individual needs .” from the report
Respectful care
Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible. Inspectors saw care that respected privacy, dignity and individual preferences.
“Staff consistently strived to ensure that people had the best possible care, and that they were supported in a compassionate, dignified and safe way.” from the report
Good oversight
The management team gathered views through surveys and meetings and used regular audits covering areas such as medicines, care plans and accidents.
“Effective arrangements were in place for gathering people's views of the service they received and those of people acting on their behalf.” from the report
Mental health risk assessments
needs fixingSome risk assessments for people with mental health conditions did not contain enough detail. The report says these were updated immediately after the inspection.
“some risk assessments for people with mental health conditions lacked enough detail” from the report
Insulin ordering
needs fixingInsulin had been over-ordered for some people with diabetes. The manager took immediate action, including introducing a revised monitoring form and extra weekly audits.
“Insulin (for people with diabetes) had been over ordered for some people using the service” from the report
Registered manager vacancy
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. An interim manager was running the home while the provider recruited for the post.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure risk assessments for people with mental health conditions contain enough detail?
- 02What changes were made to insulin ordering and monitoring after the inspection?
- 03Has a registered manager now been appointed, and who is responsible for the home until then?
- 04What are the home's current arrangements for personal care, activities and responding to individual preferences, given that Caring and Responsive were not covered?
- 05How are relatives' concerns recorded, followed up and shared with families?
This inspection was prompted by a review of information and covered Safe, Effective and Well-led, including infection control; Caring and Responsive were not assessed and their ratings were not given. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe arrangements for visitors and new admissions.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 31 March 2021. It looked at how well the home prevented and controlled infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, including appointments, written guidance and a visiting pod. They saw staff using personal protective equipment and following social distancing guidance.
The home had COVID-19 checks for new admissions, testing and isolation arrangements, and staff training on protective equipment and infection control. Inspectors said they were assured that the home met good infection prevention and control guidelines.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of the quality of care, so it does not provide current ratings for all five areas.
Health information
The home developed new records about residents' health and shared them with healthcare professionals before appointments. This helped support virtual consultations and reduced the need for external visitors.
“This had reduced the need for external visitors to the home, and had facilitated smooth virtual consultations with healthcare professionals.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors had to follow written rules and use booked appointments. Inspectors saw clear instructions, appropriate protective equipment and social distancing.
“A system of allocated appointments was developed for family visiting in residents rooms and in the visiting pod which would ensure visitors to the home were minimised.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had been trained to use protective equipment and follow infection control procedures. The home also had protective equipment stations across the building.
“Staff had been appropriately trained in the use of PPE and infection control processes.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home carried out COVID-19 assessments, requested testing before hospital discharge, and required new residents to test and isolate when they arrived.
“New residents were required to test and then isolate when first arriving at the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the home's current arrangements for family visits, including appointments and visits in residents' rooms?
- 02What testing and isolation arrangements are used when a new resident arrives from hospital?
- 03How are staff currently trained and checked in the safe use of personal protective equipment?
- 04What is the home's current full CQC rating for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
- 05How are infection prevention and control checks kept under review now?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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.
Every inspection of Stella & Harry Freedman House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stella & Harry Freedman House →
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Stella & Harry Freedman House →
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 November 2010.
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.