CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 23 Broadfield Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, safe medicines systems, regular fire checks and enough suitably checked staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed clearly. Staff had relevant induction, training and supervision, and people were supported with food, healthcare and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in their care, had key workers and received support to make everyday choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's histories, needs and preferences. People were supported with relationships, activities, communication, complaints and community life.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff understood their roles and used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service. Staff said they felt supported and could raise concerns.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Waterfield Supported Homes Limited - 23 Broadfield Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 August 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff, a relative and managers. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, training records and other documents.
The home supported seven people with mental health needs. Inspectors found that people felt safe, were treated with respect and had their privacy. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them stay in touch with family, friends and community activities.
Medicines, fire safety, recruitment and infection control were managed safely. Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and regularly reviewed. Staff were trained and supported, and managers checked the quality of the service.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection published in May 2017.
People felt safe and respected
People told inspectors they liked living at the home, felt safe and had privacy. Inspectors observed friendly and caring interactions.
“People told us they liked living here and that they felt safe.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored and managed safely. Staff were trained, records were completed correctly and regular audits had found no concerns.
“People's medicines were safely managed and stored.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, histories, preferences and choices. Staff knew the plans and understood how to support people.
“The information in the plans was detailed and reflected the knowledge and understanding staff had of people's personal histories” from the report
Family and community links
The home actively supported people to maintain relationships and take part in activities, including visits, day centres, church services and community events.
“The home had a very strong culture of promoting people's relationships with families and friends.” from the report
Strong management oversight
Managers used audits, feedback, staff meetings and updated policies to monitor and improve the service. Staff said they could speak to managers at any time.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What progress has been made with the exterior renovations mentioned in the report?
- 02How will you assess and review my relative's mental health needs, risks and preferences?
- 03How will you support my relative to make their own decisions and maintain independence?
- 04How are agency staff briefed about residents' needs and care plans?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint, and what happens if it is not resolved?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Waterfield Supported Homes Limited - 23 Broadfield Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support across all five areas.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. Inspectors spoke with people using the home, staff, volunteers, the registered manager and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, policies, complaints and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were safe and supported by enough trained staff. Medicines were managed safely, risks were reviewed, and recruitment checks were completed. People were supported with their health, food, activities and decisions about their care.
People told inspectors that staff were kind and respectful. Care was personalised, and people were involved in planning and reviewing it. The home had systems to listen to people's views, handle concerns and check the quality of care.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was rated Good. The service had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, so this rating remained unchanged.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, including activities and appointments. Medicines were securely stored, safely managed and accurately recorded.
“Medicine administration records were accurately completed and contained no gaps in signatures.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and supportive. Inspectors observed that people were comfortable with staff, and records showed that privacy and dignity were respected.
“We observed people were comfortable around staff and at ease when they requested for support.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped plan and review their care. Staff recorded individual routines, preferences, interests and goals, and responded when people's needs changed.
“Staff assessed people's needs and developed individual care plans based on the information gathered about their health, background, likes, interests and goals” from the report
Support for choice and independence
Staff followed the Mental Capacity Act principles and supported people to make decisions. People were encouraged to do things for themselves and maintain important relationships.
“People were supported to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager used audits, meetings, feedback and incident reviews to monitor care and make improvements. Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and learn from mistakes.
“Quality assurance systems remained effective and were used to monitor people's care and the safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative if their mental health needs changed?
- 02How will my relative be involved in planning and reviewing their care?
- 03How do you support people to make their own decisions and remain independent?
- 04How do you make sure medicines are given safely and records remain complete?
- 05What activities and community appointments could my relative take part in?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating; the report gives 28 April 2017 on its cover and 30 April 2017 in the detailed inspection information. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 2017 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 23 Broadfield Road
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 January 2011.
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 Lewisham
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 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.