CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Eadmund
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and identified risks. Inspectors found safe medicines arrangements, enough staff, suitable recruitment checks and good infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and care was planned around them. Staff supported nutrition, healthcare, communication and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect and knew their individual communication methods, preferences and needs. Relatives said they were involved in care reviews.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported to make choices, maintain relationships and join activities in the community. Complaints information was available and complaints had been handled appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive, person-centred culture and regular checks on areas such as medicines, safety and incidents. Staff said the management was supportive.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor issues noted.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 27 February 2020. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines records and management checks.
They found people were safe and supported by enough suitably trained staff. Medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, the home was clean, and people received support with food, healthcare and communication.
Inspectors also found respectful relationships, personalised care and support for choice, independence, family contact and community activities. The home had systems for complaints, quality checks and working with health and social care professionals.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 3 August 2017.
People kept safe
Risks were assessed and reviewed, and staff knew how to support people safely, including during activities and health emergencies.
“People were protected from identified risks. Risks to people's well-being were assessed, reviewed and managed safely” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans focused on people as individuals and included their health, communication, preferences and goals.
“Care plans were holistic and focused on people as individuals.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors observed respectful interactions, and relatives spoke positively about the care and support.
“There was a visible person-centred culture within the staffing team and staff had developed good relationships with people and their relatives.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records, risk assessments and regular audits supported safe administration.
“Medicines administration records were completed appropriately by staff and regular audits were conducted to ensure continued safe administration of medicines.” from the report
Bathroom handrail
minorA ground-floor bathroom handrail needed replacing. The manager said this would be dealt with after the inspection.
“A handrail in the bathroom on the ground floor required replacing and this was discussed with the registered manager who confirmed this would be actioned following our inspection.” from the report
Home size
minorThe home is larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design and setting helped reduce any negative impact.
“The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties.” from the report
End of life planning
minorNo one needed end of life care during the inspection. The home was still reviewing and developing a new planning tool for future use.
“They said that as a result of this they were currently reviewing and developing a new end of life care planning tool that would be implemented soon.” from the report
- 01Has the ground-floor bathroom handrail now been replaced?
- 02How will you make sure the home's size does not affect my relative's choice, privacy or independence?
- 03What is the current position on the new end of life care planning tool?
- 04How will you support my relative's specific communication needs and recognise their wishes?
- 05How often will my relative's care plan and risks be reviewed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some activity and record-keeping issues.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 28 and 29 June 2017. The inspector spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also observed care, reviewed four people's records, checked medicines and looked at staffing, recruitment, premises and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk plans and good support with healthcare, food and communication.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Care records were personal and detailed, and relatives said they felt involved. Inspectors noted little staff interaction and few activities at the home on one day, and some fridge temperature checks had not been recorded, but the home remained Good overall.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in May 2015. Inspectors said it continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.
People felt safe
Relatives were confident that people were safe, and staff understood individual risks while supporting independence.
“Relatives told us they were happy with the care their relatives received and were confident people were safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with dignity, privacy and choice.
“We observed interactions between staff and people using the service were familiar and friendly and staff clearly knew how to work positively with people to help ensure their wellbeing.” from the report
Personalised care records
Care plans included people's histories, interests, preferences and goals. Visual information helped people understand care and healthcare arrangements.
“Care records were centred on people as individuals and contained detailed information about people's history, their strengths, interests, preferences and aspirations” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored properly and the administration records checked by inspectors had no errors.
“We found no recording errors on any of the medicine administration record sheets we looked at.” from the report
Good links with healthcare
People were supported to attend healthcare appointments, and records included updated hospital passports.
“There was evidence of regular visits to GPs, and appointments with the dentist, optician, chiropodist and other healthcare professionals.” from the report
Limited activities on one day
needs fixingInspectors saw little staff interaction and very few activities in the home on one day. The manager said this may have been affected by an outing day and agency staffing, and planned individual activity bags.
“During our observations of the day we noted there was very little variation in this, there was little staff interaction with people and very few in house activities.” from the report
Some checks were not recorded
minorSome fridge temperature checks had been missed. The manager said more recent checks had taken place, and inspectors said they would check that these continued.
“Some fridge temperature checks had not always been recorded, we spoke with the manager who explained that issues with staff recruitment had resulted in some of these records not being kept” from the report
- 01What activities are now available inside the home each day, including on days when people go out?
- 02How do you make sure agency and bank staff know each person's preferred activities and communication methods?
- 03How are fridge temperature checks recorded and reviewed now?
- 04How will you make sure staffing levels support regular one-to-one interaction during quiet periods?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviewing their family member's care plan and daily activities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 August 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 The Eadmund
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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 Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.