CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Old Registry
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, risk assessments, safeguarding, equipment checks and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this follow-up inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this follow-up inspection. Inspectors did receive positive comments from people and relatives about the home and its staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this follow-up inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved audits and monitoring systems, clear staff responsibilities, and an open culture where people, relatives and staff could raise issues.
What inspectors found, December 2022
The Old Registry is rated Good; inspectors found safe care, enough staff and stronger management systems after earlier breaches.
This was a follow-up inspection on 8 December 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records. The home supported 8 people and was registered for up to 9 adults with learning disabilities.
Inspectors rated Safe and Well-led as Good. They found medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, staff were suitably recruited, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. They also found that premises checks, fire safety checks and infection control arrangements were in place.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with breaches relating to medicines, premises and equipment, and good governance. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and said the home was no longer in breach of those regulations. This report only gives current ratings for Safe and Well-led.
Medicines managed safely
Medicines records were completed correctly and checked regularly. Staff who supported people with medicines had suitable training.
“At this inspection we found medicines were managed consistently and safely in line with national guidance.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks included references, criminal record checks, identity and the right to work.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and to provide personalised care and support.” from the report
Safer premises
The previous problems with fire doors and an expired gas certificate had been addressed. Inspectors found current safety checks and records for equipment and the premises.
“The fire doors we checked at random, closed properly and regular fire safety audits were undertaken.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to raise concerns and share ideas. Inspectors found that management responded to issues raised.
“The registered manager operated an open and transparent culture and responded to any issues raised.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check medicines records each day and each week, and what happens if a signature is missing?
- 02How often are fire doors, gas appliances and other equipment checked now?
- 03How do you adjust staffing when people are unwell, staff are absent or someone has a community appointment?
- 04How will my relative be involved in meetings, menu choices and decisions about their support?
- 05What evidence can you provide about the areas not rated in this inspection, especially care planning, activities and responding to individual needs?
This was a follow-up inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection control under Safe; the report does not give current ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 2022 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 2020
The Old Registry was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but serious problems with medicines, fire doors, gas safety and quality checks.
This was a planned inspection on 13 January 2020. One inspector spoke with three people using the home, a staff member, a relative and managers. The inspector also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records, and later spoke with two relatives by telephone.
The home provided accommodation and support for up to nine adults with learning disabilities. Eight people were living there at the inspection. Inspectors found people were treated kindly, supported to make choices and encouraged to be independent and take part in activities.
However, medicines had sometimes been given without being signed for. One person had not received a medicine as prescribed. The gas safety certificate was out of date, and three fire doors did not close properly. The home’s checks had not found these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The provider was asked to send an action plan and will be monitored and re-inspected.
Kind and respectful support
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw staff treat people courteously and respect their privacy, dignity and wishes.
“During our visit we saw staff interacted with people who used the service in a caring and courteous way.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's individual needs and preferences. They were reviewed regularly so staff could respond to changes.
“We saw people received personalised care and support that was tailored to their individual needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make choices, develop daily living skills and take positive risks safely.
“People were encouraged to maintain their independence as much as possible, in all aspects of life.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to stay in touch with relatives and take part in activities in the community.
“On the day of our visit, most people went out in the community to take part in different activities such as, bowling, swimming and exercise classes.” from the report
Medicines were not always managed safely
seriousSome medicines were administered without a recorded signature, and one person did not receive a medicine at the prescribed frequency. Inspectors said this placed people at risk of harm.
“Due to the nature of the service, it was difficult to ascertain if people had received their medicines where we had identified missing signatures on the MAR records.” from the report
Building safety problems
seriousThe gas safety certificate had expired. Three fire doors did not close properly, and one was damaged.
“We also found three fire doors did not close properly against the door frames and one of them was damaged.” from the report
Quality checks did not find problems
seriousThe provider had audits, but they were not strong enough to identify or act on the medicines and premises concerns.
“The quality assurance system was not always effective.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure every medicine is given at the correct time and recorded correctly?
- 02How are medicines records now checked, and what happens if a signature is missing?
- 03Has the gas safety certificate been renewed, and can you show us the current certificate?
- 04Have all three fire doors been repaired so they close properly?
- 05How often are safety and quality audits carried out, and how do you check that problems found are put right?
This was a planned full inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous inspection was rated Good and published on 17 October 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.
Every inspection of The Old Registry
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 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 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.