CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The George Brooker Care Society Limited
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
What inspectors found, December 2020
The Abbeyfield East London Extra Care Society Limited was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, but were not assured about the latest guidance for admitting people who had tested positive for Covid-19.
This was a targeted inspection on 27 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic. The inspection was announced around half an hour before the visit.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, testing, isolation, protective equipment, cleaning and infection outbreaks appropriately. They also found the home clean and hygienic, with enough protective equipment and trained staff using it.
Inspectors were not assured that the home had the latest government guidance about admitting people who had tested positive for Covid-19. The home was signposted to resources to improve its approach. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a standard overall quality rating.
Visits and contact
The home followed visitor guidance and provided a designated garden visiting area. People could also keep in touch with relatives by video call.
“The service followed current guidance on visitors to care homes.” from the report
Protective equipment
There were enough supplies of protective equipment, and staff had been trained to use it.
“There were enough supplies of Personal Protective Equipment [PPE] for staff to use to reduce the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules and regular infection control audits were in place.
“The service was clean and hygienic and there were cleaning schedules in place to ensure all areas of the service were safe from infection.” from the report
Testing and outbreak arrangements
The home had arrangements for testing people and staff, and for isolation if someone tested positive for Covid-19.
“Appropriate arrangements were in place for testing people and staff for Covid-19.” from the report
Admission guidance
needs fixingInspectors were not assured that the home had the latest government guidance for admitting people who had tested positive for Covid-19. They signposted the home to resources to develop its approach.
“We were not assured the provider had latest government guidance on admission of people who tested positive of Covid-19.” from the report
- 01What current guidance do you use when admitting someone who has tested positive for Covid-19?
- 02What changed after inspectors said the home did not have the latest admission guidance?
- 03How are residents and staff tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 04How do you manage visits and video calls when infection risks change?
- 05How often are cleaning and infection control checks completed, and what happens when a problem is found?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not give standard ratings for the other key questions or an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 December 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, January 2019
The Abbeyfield East London Extra Care Society Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a recommendation to improve support around relationships and sexuality.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 26 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a health and social care professional. They reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines records, rotas and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments, trained staff and good links with health professionals.
People were treated kindly and involved in their care. They had personalised care plans, activities and support with end of life wishes. The home was also part of a national review of oral health support, including help with oral hygiene and access to dentists.
The inspectors recommended that the home improve its information and care planning about relationships and sexuality, including support for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were administered as prescribed and that staff had received medicines training.
“Medicine Administration Charts (MAR) included details on how to administer medicines, the person's medical diagnosis and allergies and showed that medicines were given as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's communication needs and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“This showed the service understood people's individual care and support needs and guided staff to offer the most appropriate support to ensure people were provided with emotional support.” from the report
Personalised support
Each person had a care plan covering their individual support needs. Activities were adapted to people's interests and past experiences.
“Each person had an individual care plan, which contained information about the support they needed from staff.” from the report
Strong monitoring
The home used feedback, spot checks, medicines audits and provider visits to identify improvements and check the quality of care.
“We found clear systems in place to audit the overall running and development of the service.” from the report
Relationships and sexuality information
minorCare plans did not contain information about people's sexuality or relationships. The home also lacked specific information about supporting people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
“there was no specific information available within the service about supporting people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and support each person's relationships, sexuality and identity?
- 02What support can you provide for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender?
- 03How would you meet my relative's particular communication, dementia and emotional support needs?
- 04How are medicines checked and recorded for each person?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan and end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and included a detailed review of oral health support; the report says the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 2019 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 George Brooker Care Society Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at The George Brooker Care Society Limited →
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The George Brooker Care Society Limited →
- June 2016Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 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 Barking and Dagenham
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. 79 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is a safe pair of hands and her years of experience certainly shine through.”
“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.