CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Warm Melody Retreat
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Warm Melody Retreat rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a recent registered-manager vacancy being managed.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff records, the building and management systems.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, clean premises and suitable infection-control measures. People were involved in their care and were supported with their mental health, healthcare, independence, activities and relationships.
The home had no registered manager in post because the previous manager had recently left. The deputy manager and provider were running the service, and plans were in place to appoint a new manager. The previous two inspections could not be rated because there was not enough evidence of consistent good practice.
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found staff were available, suitably skilled and recruited using appropriate checks.
“There were enough staff to support people. Staff on duty were suitably skilled and experienced.” from the report
Support for independence
People were helped to regain confidence and do more for themselves, including travelling, cooking and daily living tasks.
“They take me out and helped me build my confidence and now I can do two stops myself.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with warmth, privacy and dignity. Staff gave people time to make choices and respected their personal space.
“Staff were kind and looked after people well.” from the report
Good health support
Staff supported people with healthcare and mental health needs and acted on advice from healthcare professionals.
“The communication is fantastic with the home and we get regular updates.” from the report
Registered manager vacancy
minorThe registered manager had recently left. The deputy manager was running the service with the provider, and plans were in place to appoint a new manager.
“The service did not have a current registered manager in post as they had recently left.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for the home while the registered manager post is vacant, and what is the timetable for appointing a new manager?
- 02How would you support my relative's particular mental health needs, risks and personal goals?
- 03How do you review whether people are becoming more independent and achieving the outcomes in their care plans?
- 04What training and supervision do staff receive for mental health needs, positive behaviour support and any specific healthcare needs?
- 05How are people's and relatives' feedback, complaints and suggestions used to make changes?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous two inspections were not rated because there was insufficient evidence of consistent good practice. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 September 2021 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, October 2019
Warm Melody Retreat was inspected but not rated; inspectors found kind, generally safe care but concerns about staff consistency, management responsibilities and learning from incidents.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 September 2019. One inspector reviewed information held by the CQC, spoke with the manager and provider representative, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was supporting one person at the time. Inspectors found that the person was safe, treated kindly and involved in decisions about their care. Medicines, staffing, cleanliness, food safety, risk assessments and healthcare support were described positively.
There were also weaknesses. Staff turnover had affected consistency of care. It was sometimes unclear who was responsible for management decisions. Some responses to earlier incidents had not protected people and others well enough, and electronic quality records had been lost.
The home was inspected across all five CQC areas, but none was given a rating. The CQC said there was not enough evidence of consistent good practice because the person had only been using the home for six months. The previous inspection was also unrated.
Safety and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to support the person and said recruitment checks were completed. Risks to physical, emotional and mental health had been assessed.
“There were adequate numbers of staff to support the person.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported the person in a warm and respectful way. They encouraged choices, privacy and independence in everyday activities.
“Notwithstanding the above, staff were kind and helpful.” from the report
Personalised health support
The person's care plan included their health needs, choices and desired outcomes. Staff supported appointments and followed recommendations from healthcare professionals.
“Staff followed recommendations made by healthcare professionals involved in the person's care and treatment” from the report
Staff changes affected consistency
needs fixingStaff turnover meant new staff needed time to learn about the person and their support needs. This meant care was not always consistent.
“the person had not always received consistent care as new staff needed time to learn about them and the care and support they required.” from the report
Unclear management responsibilities
needs fixingIt was not always clear who was responsible for decisions and managing the home. The manager also could not access some electronic training records.
“it was not clear at times where responsibility for making decisions and managing the service lay” from the report
Incident responses were not always protective
seriousThe provider did not act appropriately or quickly enough in response to concerns about a person who had previously used the home. The provider said it would improve its future decisions.
“decisions made by the provider in response to incidents had not always sufficiently protected the safety and wellbeing of people and others.” from the report
Activities were still being developed
minorStaff had started planning activities with the person, but this work was not finished at the inspection. The person's health had been prioritised.
“Staff had started to plan with the person how they would be supported with their activities of choice.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure care remains consistent when staff leave or new staff join?
- 02Who now has responsibility for making decisions and managing the home?
- 03What action was taken after the incidents and concerns involving people who previously used the home?
- 04How are quality checks and staff training records now stored so they cannot be lost?
- 05What activities can the person take part in, and how will these be planned around their health and choices?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, but none was rated because there was not enough evidence of consistent good practice; the previous inspection was also unrated. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 October 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 Warm Melody Retreat
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 July 2018.
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.