CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 49 Essex Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, infection control, staffing and recruitment were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed before they moved in. Staff were trained, people were supported with food and drink, and healthcare professionals were involved.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an approachable management team, effective audits and systems for learning from incidents and improving care.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-managed care, with people supported in a person-centred way.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited from 29 November to 2 December 2022. They observed care, spoke with staff and the registered manager, reviewed care and recruitment records, and spoke with relatives.
The home supports up to six people with learning disabilities. Five people lived there at the time. Inspectors found that people were safe, had suitable care plans, received their medicines safely, and had enough trained staff. The home was clean and maintained.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this inspection, so no new ratings were given for those areas.
Good safety systems
The home assessed and reviewed risks covering health, nutrition, falls, personal care, community access and finances. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.
“The risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed, monitored and managed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs, communication, culture, wishes and aspirations. Staff knew people well and supported choice and independence.
“Care plans were person-centred, which reflected people's individual needs, aspirations and outcomes.” from the report
Trained and stable staff
Inspectors found enough staff with suitable training and experience. New staff worked alongside experienced colleagues before working alone.
“Most staff had worked for the service for many years and therefore provided continuity in care.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff worked with health professionals and kept detailed health action plans and hospital passports for everyone.
“Collaborative working with other agencies, such as GPs, social workers and speech and language therapists, had ensured effective care and improved people's quality of life.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep my relative's risk assessments and care plans updated as their needs change?
- 02How will you support my relative to access healthcare, and how will their hospital passport be kept up to date?
- 03How do you check medicines records and deal with any medicines errors or concerns?
- 04How will my family be told if something goes wrong or my relative's care needs change?
- 05How can my relative and our family give feedback or suggest improvements?
This was a focused inspection covering Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not assessed and no new ratings were given for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 2023 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 16 December 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with the manager, two support workers, one person living in the home, two relatives and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care and staff records.
The home supported five people in a six-bedded setting for people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people felt safe and that staff were kind, respectful and knew people well. Staff supported independence, managed risks, gave medicines safely and helped people access health care and activities.
Care plans were detailed and personalised. Staff training, recruitment checks, safeguarding arrangements and quality checks were in place. The manager was approachable and the staff team worked well together.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 15 June 2017.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe support and one-to-one attention. Low staff turnover helped provide continuity of care.
“Most staff had been working in the service for some time, and staff turnover was very low, thus providing a good continuity of care for people using the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff knew people's personalities, preferences and important routines.
“Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's preferences, personalities and things that were important to them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered personal, physical, social and emotional needs. Staff were given clear guidance about how to support each person.
“People's care plans contained detailed, clear information about people's specific needs, their personal preferences, routines and how staff should best support them.” from the report
Promoting independence
Staff encouraged people to make choices and remain as independent as possible. Risk assessments were designed to support independence rather than unnecessarily restrict people.
“The staff assessed all potential risks to people and put guidance in place so that the risks were minimised.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff found the manager approachable. The provider used regular meetings, surveys and quality checks to hear views and monitor the service.
“The provider sought the views of people using the service, relatives and staff in different ways.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01The report says there was a new manager who was still being registered with CQC. Has that registration process been completed?
- 02How many staff usually support my relative, and how do you maintain continuity if regular staff are unavailable?
- 03How would you communicate with my relative using photographs, symbols or objects of reference if needed?
- 04How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, based on their interests and support needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, using observations, discussions, records and information from relatives and a healthcare professional; most people were non-verbal and one person was spoken with directly. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 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 49 Essex Park
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 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 Barnet
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 £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on life.”
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.