CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 25/27 Haymill Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Support for Living Limited - 25/27 Haymill Close was rated Good; inspectors found improvements in cleanliness, equipment storage and management checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 6 November 2018. Inspectors checked only whether the home was safe and well-led, because an earlier inspection had found legal requirements were not being met.
The earlier problems with dirty bathrooms and unsafe equipment storage had been addressed. Inspectors found the home clean, equipment stored safely, medicines managed properly and staff recruited safely. They also found stronger checks on safety and quality.
The ratings for Safe and Well-led were Good. The overall Good rating also included ratings from the earlier comprehensive inspection for the other three areas, which were not inspected this time.
Clean and safer premises
The earlier problems with bathroom cleanliness and equipment storage had been corrected. Inspectors found the bathrooms clean and equipment stored appropriately.
“Both bathrooms at the home were clean and well-maintained. The service had made provision for unused items to be stored appropriately.” from the report
Medicines management
Medicines records were completed appropriately, storage was secure and checks were carried out by managers and staff.
“Medicines were stored securely and administered by staff who had received training to administer people's medicines in a safe manner.” from the report
Good safety systems
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. The manager reviewed incidents and shared learning to help prevent repeat mistakes.
“When mistakes or near misses had been made learning from those mistakes was shared with the staff team to prevent a reoccurrence.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The home had daily, weekly and monthly checks covering areas such as food safety, medicines, records, fire safety and premises.
“The registered manager and the provider Certitude had systems in place for auditing the service to ensure a good standard of service delivery.” from the report
Communication and support
Inspectors found daily handovers, regular staff meetings and support from senior management.
“There were good lines of communication between the management team and staff.” from the report
Fridge temperature records
needs fixingOne fridge had been recorded at 6 degrees for 16 days, but the thermometer showed 12 degrees. The manager said this would be discussed with staff and monitored.
“One fridge was recorded at 6 degrees for 16 days. However, when we looked at the thermometer it was 12 degrees.” from the report
Permanent staff vacancies
needs fixingTwo staff were leaving and the home was short of permanent staff. Recruitment was under way, with bank or known agency staff to be used if needed.
“We had enough staff but two staff are leaving…we are now short of permanent staff.” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the fridge temperature issue, and how are temperatures checked and recorded now?
- 02Have the permanent staff vacancies been filled, and how often would bank or agency staff be used?
- 03Was the GP signature obtained for the as-needed medicine guidance?
- 04What were the ratings and findings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
- 05How can relatives see the current audits and action plans for premises and medicines safety?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 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.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks and bathroom cleanliness needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 and 12 April 2018. One inspector visited the home, observed care, checked records and medicines, and spoke with staff, managers and one relative. Most residents could not speak with the inspector because of their complex needs.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. Staff were kind and respectful. People had detailed care plans, access to health care, support with food and drink, and activities suited to their interests.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led, so the overall rating was Requires Improvement. Two bathrooms were not clean enough and equipment was stored unsafely. The home's checks had not found these problems. The provider took prompt action after the inspection. One medicine had also been treated as a controlled drug by mistake, but this was corrected immediately.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff interacting warmly with people and responding to their communication, humour and preferences.
“We observed that care staff were warm and friendly with people and took time to work at people's pace.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff detailed information about people's lives, communication, routines, preferences and support needs.
“People had person centred care plans that contained a detailed background to inform staff about aspects of their life and sometimes their family history.” from the report
Support for health and nutrition
People were supported to see health professionals, eat and drink healthily, and follow specialist guidance when they were at risk of choking.
“People were encouraged to eat and drink healthily.” from the report
Choice and involvement
Staff supported people to make everyday choices, including choices about food, drinks, activities and personal care.
“I let them make their own decision, I don't take it for granted they can't make a decision, they have a choice.” from the report
Bathroom cleanliness and storage
seriousTwo bathrooms were not clean enough. Unused equipment and a sharps box were stored in ways that could create safety or infection risks.
“The provider did not ensure that risks associated with the premises, its cleanliness and storage of equipment were appropriately assessed, monitored and mitigated.” from the report
Checks did not identify problems
needs fixingThe home's health and safety and environmental checks had not found or dealt with the bathroom and storage risks.
“The systems of governance in place were not always being used effectively to ensure a good standard of service provision.” from the report
Staff team changing
minorSome staff had left and the home was recruiting to build a stable permanent team. Staff said staffing levels varied and that more staff would sometimes be helpful.
“The provider was actively recruiting to ensure a full permanent staff team.” from the report
- 01What checks now make sure both bathrooms stay clean and free from infection risks?
- 02How is unused mobility equipment removed or stored safely, and how are sharps boxes checked and collected?
- 03What changes were made to medicine training and records after the Lorazepam mistake?
- 04Has the manager now registered with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home if the manager is absent?
- 05How are staffing levels reviewed when people's support needs change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous focused inspection in 2016 had only checked whether earlier medicines concerns had been addressed. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 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 25/27 Haymill Close
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 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 Ealing
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.