CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Welcome Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, using PPE safely, supporting testing and following infection control guidance. The home also had arrangements for safe visiting.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 safety measures.
This was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures. It took place on 9 and 16 February 2022 and was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, managed infection risks and kept its infection control policy up to date. They also found risk assessments and plans for people and staff.
The home supported visits through telephone and video calls and a garden pod. Visitors had checks before entering, including vaccination evidence, a rapid test result, a temperature check and questions about symptoms.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Infection control systems
The home had systems to reduce infection risks and followed current guidance. Infection control information was clearly displayed for people, visitors and professionals.
“The provider had systems and processes in place that helped to mitigate the risks of infection.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home used a garden pod to help people maintain contact with relatives and friends while supporting social distancing.
“The provider had installed a pod in the garden that allowed for safe visiting and maintain social distancing.” from the report
Checks for visitors
Visitors and professionals had checks before entering the home, with records kept of test results and vaccination information.
“All visitors and professionals were required to show evidence of their COVID-19 vaccination, an on the day COVID-19 rapid lateral flow test result.” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors were assured that PPE was used safely and that testing was available for people and staff.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How can relatives visit, and are visits still held in the garden pod?
- 03What checks are currently required before visitors enter the home?
- 04How does the home manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 05How does the home support contact with family members when in-person visits are not possible?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide a full service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 May 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 precautions but some admission, PPE and premises measures needed improvement.
The inspection took place on 11 February 2021. It was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures, rather than carrying out a full inspection of the home.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were protected from infection, social distancing and shielding rules were followed, testing was available, and outbreaks could be prevented or managed. People at greater risk from COVID-19 had risk assessments, and the home supported window visits or phone and video calls with families.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about safe admissions, the use of personal protective equipment, and some hygiene and safety arrangements in the building. They found several issues, including uncertainty about how long someone should shelter after hospital discharge, unsuitable waste bins, stained upholstery and warped flooring.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for effective, caring, responsive or well-led care.
Visitor infection controls
The home gave visitors clear information and instructions and staff followed social distancing guidance.
“Information and instructions for visitors were clearly displayed and explained in person.” from the report
Support for people at higher risk
People who were more vulnerable to COVID-19 had risk assessments in place.
“The provider had ensured people who were more vulnerable to COVID-19 had a risk assessment in place.” from the report
Contact with families
The home supported window visits and helped people stay in touch by telephone or video call when visits were not possible.
“People were supported to have window visits with family members, or when this was not possible people were supported to speak to their families on the phone or via video call.” from the report
Hospital admissions
needs fixingStaff were unsure how many days a resident should shelter after leaving hospital. This meant inspectors were only somewhat assured that admissions were being managed safely.
“The provider was unsure of the number of days a resident should shelter following release from the hospital.” from the report
PPE disposal
needs fixingThe room where visitors put on and removed PPE did not have the clinical bin required for used items.
“The room used for visitors to don and doff PPE did not contain a clinical bin to dispose of used PPE items.” from the report
Building condition
needs fixingSome chairs had stained upholstery and the conservatory floor was warped. Inspectors said the flooring could be a trip hazard.
“The premises were reasonably clean; however, the upholstery of several chairs was stained, and flooring in the conservatory was warped, which could be a trip hazard.” from the report
Waste bins
minorNot all bins had a foot pedal, despite this being required by the home's infection prevention and control policy.
“Not all bins within the service had a foot-pedal as per the service's IPC policy requirement.” from the report
- 01How do you now decide how many days someone should shelter after returning from hospital?
- 02Does the PPE room now have a clinical bin for used PPE?
- 03What changes have been made to the stained upholstery and warped conservatory flooring?
- 04Do all bins now meet the infection prevention and control policy requirement for foot pedals?
- 05How do you check that staff and visitors use PPE safely and effectively?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the other four areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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.
Every inspection of Welcome Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- May 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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.