CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Sidcup Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, PPE, testing, safe admissions, visiting arrangements and the management of outbreaks. They were also told there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, safe visiting arrangements and enough staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 07 February 2022. It looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found the home was clean, staff used suitable protective equipment and visitors were screened, tested and given guidance before entering. The home had processes for isolation, safe admissions and managing infection outbreaks.
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs. Agency staff were checked for infection-control training and vaccination, and staff worked on specific units to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Clean environment
The home was described as very clean. Extra cleaning was carried out on areas with a higher infection risk, such as handrails.
“The home was very clean throughout. The home had a dedicated housekeeping team and staff also carried out extra cleaning of higher infection risk points such as handrails.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had COVID-19 and infection-control training and were observed wearing suitable protective equipment throughout the visit.
“All staff had received training on COVID-19, infection control and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Safe visiting
Visitors could attend in line with guidance. They were screened, tested and given protective equipment before entering.
“Visitors arriving at the home were screened, provided with PPE and showed evidence of testing.” from the report
Staffing arrangements
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs. Agency staff were checked and worked only on specific units to help reduce infection risks.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visiting, screening and testing arrangements working now?
- 02How do you check that agency staff have the required infection-control training and vaccinations?
- 03What happens if a resident or staff member develops COVID-19 symptoms?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff when there are COVID-19-related staff pressures?
- 05How often are high-risk areas such as handrails cleaned?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, although some people were not satisfied with the food.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness and dignity. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, care planning, staffing, healthcare support and activities were generally managed well.
Some people gave mixed views about the food. The home had identified problems with some ingredients and was making changes. Inspectors also found one unsafe medicines practice, which management addressed immediately.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published in January 2019. Inspectors found improvements in staff training, personalised care planning and quality checks. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Safety and staffing
Risks were reviewed and staff numbers were calculated according to people's needs. People said staff responded promptly when they needed help.
“People received care when they needed it because the service deployed sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that staff respected privacy, dignity and independence. Staff knew people's histories and preferences.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, routines, faiths, cultures and communication preferences. Staff reviewed plans when people's needs changed.
“People received personalised care which was planned around their needs and backgrounds.” from the report
Improved management
Quality checks, records and follow-up actions were more consistent than at the previous inspection. People and staff had regular opportunities to give feedback.
“Since our last inspection, there had been improvements to audits to ensure they were robust and identified improvements.” from the report
Mixed views about food
needs fixingSome people were not satisfied with the quality or consistency of certain dishes. The home was working with suppliers and had identified changes to improve mealtimes.
“Some of it's good, and some of it's bad.” from the report
Medicine carried without a label
seriousOne person's medicines were carried loose and unlabelled after the person chose to take them later. Inspectors said this increased the risk of the medicines being missed or given to the wrong person, and management corrected the practice immediately.
“the loose medicines were carried with staff unlabelled” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the food and ingredients since the inspection, and what do residents now say about mealtimes?
- 02How are medicines kept labelled and safe when a resident chooses to take them later?
- 03How will you check that care plans continue to reflect changes in a person's needs, faith, culture and communication?
- 04How are staffing numbers adjusted when a resident's needs increase?
- 05How are residents and relatives told about changes made in response to their feedback or complaints?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; the previous rating was Requires Improvement and all five ratings were reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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 Sidcup Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
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 Bexley
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. 85 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”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.