CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 410-412 High Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, safeguarding procedures were in place, staffing levels were sufficient and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had completed essential training and received supervision. People were supported with food, health care, oral care, consent and least restrictive care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as friendly and caring. Inspectors saw that privacy, dignity, choice and independence were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's routines, backgrounds, communication needs and interests. People were supported with activities and relationships, and knew how to complain.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had systems for audits, feedback, staff meetings and quality monitoring. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 30 January 2020. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, a relative, the manager and care staff. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, staff files, medicines records, training records and quality checks.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines management, risk assessments and safeguarding procedures. Staff were trained and supported, and people were helped to make choices and stay as independent as possible.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans reflected people's needs, communication methods, routines and interests. People were supported with activities, relationships and access to health services.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. The report says the home was also rated Good at the previous inspection on 8 August 2017.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed, recorded correctly and administered with consent. Staff had medicines training and competency checks.
“Medicine Administration Records (MAR) showed that medicines were administered as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had positive relationships with people and respected their privacy and dignity. People were encouraged to make choices and do tasks independently.
“Staff encouraged people to be independent. Care plans included information on certain tasks people completed independently.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life stories, routines, communication needs and interests. Staff supported people to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
“Care plans included information on peoples life story, which included their background.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff had completed mandatory training and refresher courses. They received supervision and appraisals and said they felt supported.
“Staff had completed mandatory training and refresher courses to perform their roles effectively.” from the report
Listening to feedback
The home held meetings and surveys with people, relatives and staff. Feedback was used to consider menus, activities and improvements.
“There was an effective system to gather people's and staff feedback on the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and record my relative's specific risks, health needs and preferred routines?
- 02How would you support my relative's communication needs, including the use of easy read information or pictures?
- 03How would you support my relative to choose meals, activities and daily routines?
- 04What staffing arrangements are normally in place, and how would you maintain familiar staff if someone is absent?
- 05The home did not support people with end of life care. What would happen if my relative later needed this support?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 2020 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements from earlier fire safety concerns sustained.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 August 2017. The inspector spoke with one person living in the home, staff, managers, relatives and health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care plans, risk assessments, staff files, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines arrangements, trained staff, regular health support, respectful care, personalised plans and a range of activities.
The home had previously been rated Inadequate overall after a serious fire safety incident and a breach of Regulation 12. A focused inspection in 2016 found improvements. In 2017, inspectors found that these improvements had been maintained, so the overall rating increased to Good.
Safety checks
Individual risks and fire evacuation needs were recorded. Regular professional and home safety checks did not identify concerns.
“Regular fire and evacuation tests were carried out and a fire risk assessment was in place to ensure people were kept safe in the event of an emergency.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Records were accurate, medicines were securely stored and staff had been assessed as competent.
“Medicines were being managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Respectful relationships
Inspectors saw staff communicating positively with people and supporting their dignity, privacy and independence.
“People were treated in a respectful and dignified manner by staff who understood the need to protect people's human rights.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, interests, health needs and communication needs. People and relatives were involved in decisions.
“Care plans were person centred and detailed people's preferences, interests and support needs.” from the report
Activities and choice
People took part in activities such as college, music classes, Zumba, gardening and trips. Activities were linked to their interests.
“There was a weekly activities timetable. People participated in activities regularly.” from the report
Previous fire safety failure
seriousAt the 2015 inspection, the home had not kept people safe from fire risks and this was linked to a very serious incident. Inspectors said the breach had been addressed and the improvements were sustained by 2017.
“People had not been adequately protected from risks, which resulted in a very serious incident at the home in August 2015.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that fire safety arrangements and evacuation plans remain up to date?
- 02What regular checks are made on medicines records and staff competence?
- 03How are each person's activities and personal preferences reviewed and kept current?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in decisions about care and support?
- 05What happens if the registered manager or deputy manager is away?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, following earlier focused inspections of fire safety, training, activities and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 2017 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 410-412 High Road
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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 Redbridge
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 £1,250 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“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.