CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Warwick House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse, risks were assessed and medicines were managed safely. Inspectors did find that some window restrictors were missing during renovation work, creating a risk of falls from height.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People received support with food, mental health, substance misuse and other health needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and supported them to make choices. People were helped to build independent living skills.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and goals. People were involved in planning their days and had access to activities, visitors and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found experienced leadership, visible staff support and accurate records. Audits and meetings were used to monitor the service and share information.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Warwick House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some safety and food hygiene improvements needed.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 8 February 2018. They spoke with three people, the registered manager and two staff members. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records and other management records. They also contacted a professional after the visit.
The home supported six people with complex mental health conditions, including some people with a history of substance abuse. Inspectors found that people were safe, received suitable support and were treated with respect. Care plans reflected people's needs and goals, including building independent living skills and moving towards more independent accommodation.
All five ratings were Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection. Some window restrictors needed replacing during renovation work, infection control audits needed strengthening and food labelling and storage needed improvement.
Safeguarding and medicines
Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and the risks linked to people's mental health and substance misuse. Medicines records showed no omissions and medicines were stored safely.
“People were protected from abuse and improper treatment as staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people.” from the report
Support for independence
People were supported to develop skills such as cooking, cleaning and managing daily life. They were also encouraged to seek work experience, employment or training.
“People were supported to maintain and build their independent living skills and people shared a goal to live more independently after their two year programme ended.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a calm and respectful way. People could make choices about their care and daily activities, and their privacy was respected.
“Staff knew the people they supported and were respectful towards people.” from the report
Open leadership
Leadership was visible, with a senior rehabilitation officer on shift at all times. The provider held daily meetings with people and regular meetings with staff.
“Leadership was visible and capable across the service.” from the report
Missing window restrictors
seriousSome window restrictors had been removed while windows were being replaced. Inspectors said this created a risk of falls from height, although the manager said they would be replaced promptly.
“We identified window restrictors were not in place across the home to reduce the risk of falls from height.” from the report
Infection control audits
needs fixingThe home was clean, but inspectors said infection control audits were not yet comprehensive or robust enough. The manager agreed to improve them.
“Some audits were in place to monitor standards of cleanliness and infection control across the service although the registered manager agreed these could be made more robust and comprehensive.” from the report
Right-to-work evidence
needs fixingAt the inspection, the provider did not have recent evidence confirming one staff member's right to work in the UK. The manager sent the evidence shortly afterwards.
“We identified the provider had not obtained recent evidence about whether one member of staff had the right to work in the UK.” from the report
- 01Have all window restrictors now been reinstalled, and how do you check windows remain safe?
- 02What changes have you made to infection control audits since the inspection?
- 03How do you label and store opened food, including meat and other chilled items?
- 04How does the two-year rehabilitation programme support my relative's individual goals and move towards greater independence?
- 05How are daily meetings, care plans and monthly keyworker meetings used to respond to changes in my relative's needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five key questions; end-of-life care was not inspected because the home did not provide it. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 2018 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 Warwick House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 June 2014.
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.