CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sweetcroft Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, recruitment, staffing, risk management and infection control were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support from trained staff and were helped with their health, nutrition and healthcare needs. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported independence and involved people in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and interests, and activities were available. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had monitoring systems, staff meetings and quality checks in place. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection, although there was no registered manager at the time of the visit.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, although there was no registered manager at the visit and one person felt staff were rushed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 27 April 2021. Inspectors spoke with five people, three relatives, eight staff members and one visiting professional. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable infection control and safeguarding arrangements. People were supported with healthcare, food, activities and their personal choices.
Care was described as kind and respectful. Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. The home had improved its environment, training and management systems since the new provider took over in September 2019.
The service had no registered manager during the inspection. A new manager had started the following week and intended to apply to become registered. The previous inspection, under the former provider, had rated the service Requires Improvement.
Safe care
Inspectors found safeguarding systems, risk assessments, medicines management and infection control arrangements in place.
“People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, patient and supportive. Staff encouraged people to make choices and remain independent.
“People who used the service were treated with dignity and respect and were supported by staff who understood the needs of the people they were caring for.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, health needs and communication guidance. They were reviewed and updated.
“Care plans were person centred and recorded people's preferences about how they wished to receive care, and staff were knowledgeable about the needs of the people they supported.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered daily group and individual activities, including gardening, baking, exercise and crafts. It also supported contact with families during COVID-19 restrictions.
“The provider employed an activity co-ordinator who arranged a variety of group and individual activities on a daily basis.” from the report
Improved environment
The provider had redecorated communal areas and added signs, coloured doors and other features to help people, including those living with dementia, find their way around.
“The new provider had made significant improvements to the environment of the home.” from the report
Manager registration
needs fixingThere was no manager registered with the CQC during the inspection. A new manager had started the following week and intended to apply for registration.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Staff sometimes felt rushed
minorOne person said the home might need more staff and that staff could be rushed. Inspectors nevertheless found there were enough staff overall and no agency staff were being used.
“Maybe they could do with a few more [staff]. It's hard work. They are rushed.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager applied to become the registered manager, and who is currently responsible for the home?
- 02How do you make sure staff have enough time to care for people without being rushed?
- 03How are medicines audits and care plan reviews carried out, and can families be told about any concerns found?
- 04How would you tailor activities and one-to-one support to my relative's interests and communication needs?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control measures, and it also checked the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control but found not all staff had coronavirus risk assessments.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 27 January 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures for visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing, cleaning and safe admissions. The home also supported contact with families through visits, video calls, telephone calls and a monthly newsletter.
The inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rating for Safe. Inspectors found that each person had a coronavirus risk assessment, but not all staff did. The home said it would make staff and people's assessments more detailed.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infection, including testing, protective equipment and cleaning checks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Safer visiting
Visitors used an advance booking system, a designated entrance and an outside route to visiting areas, with protective equipment required.
“The provider had appropriate procedures in place for visitors.” from the report
Family contact
The home offered video and telephone calls, sent families a monthly newsletter and supported visits for people receiving end of life care.
“Alternatives to visiting in person so people could maintain their relationships with family and friends included video and telephone calls.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
Cleaning schedules set out specific tasks, which were signed off daily. Weekly and monthly audits were also used to monitor cleaning and infection control.
“The provider had cleaning schedules in place which indicated specific tasks that needed to be completed and these were signed off daily.” from the report
Incomplete staff risk assessments
needs fixingNot all staff had a coronavirus risk assessment. Inspectors discussed making the assessments more detailed, including factors such as ethnicity and age.
“Each person had a coronavirus risk assessment and management plan, but not all staff had a risk assessment.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now had a coronavirus risk assessment?
- 02What additional factors are included in staff and people's risk assessments?
- 03How are visits arranged, and what protective equipment must visitors use?
- 04How are new admissions and people returning to the home kept separate from communal areas?
- 05How often are cleaning and infection control audits reviewed, and what happens if a problem is found?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; it was inspected but not rated and did not assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 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 Sweetcroft Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Sweetcroft Residential Care Home →
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Sweetcroft Residential Care Home →
- August 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 September 2019.
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 Hillingdon
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 £1,320 a week. 81 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.