Millenium Care Limited - 89 Fox Lane
London, N13 · 0.2 km
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home
CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Waterfall House
Amberley House - London
44-48 Amberley Road, London, N13 4BJ
Requires improvementpublished 4 March 2025, 17 months ago
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
The latest report, explained
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; the home has improved since an Inadequate rating and is no longer in special measures, but inspectors found gaps in risk checks, training and oversight.
Inspectors visited on 1 November 2023 and reviewed information until 11 December 2023. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers. They also reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. People said they felt safe. Medicines were generally managed safely, staffing had improved, healthcare referrals were timely, and activities and care plans were more personalised.
However, important problems remained. Some risks were not properly assessed or monitored. Staff training was incomplete or out of date, including training on safeguarding, fire safety, the Mental Capacity Act and special diets. The systems used to check the quality of care had not found these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The home was previously rated Inadequate and had been in special measures, but it left special measures after this inspection.
What inspectors praised
Medicines
Medicines were generally given safely and on time. Records showed no missed administration entries, and stock checks were accurate.
“Medication Administration Records showed people received their medicines on time and there were no omissions in documenting this.” from the report
Staffing at the inspection
There were enough staff for the 3 people living at the home during the inspection. The home had also employed an external cleaning company and a full-time cook.
“There were enough staff to meet people's care and support needs.” from the report
Healthcare support
People were supported to attend routine and specialist appointments. Staff made referrals to the local care home assessment team when they had health concerns.
“Relatives told us they felt people received timely referrals to healthcare professionals and were monitored.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans had been rewritten with more information about people's needs, preferences and what a good day meant for them. Families were involved in planning.
“At this inspection, care plans were more person centred and contained more detailed information on people's care and support needs.” from the report
Activities and communication
People were supported with activities linked to their interests, faith and language. Staff understood how people communicated, including someone who did not speak English.
“Activities focused on things people enjoyed.” from the report
Premises improvements
The home had been deep cleaned and decorating was under way. Hallways and doors had been repainted, and some rooms had been decorated.
“The provider had ensured the home had been deep cleaned.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
Staff training gaps
seriousSeveral staff had not completed important training, and some training had not been refreshed for years. The cook had not been trained in swallowing problems or different diet textures, despite preparing soft diets.
“There were significant gaps in staff training.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousQuality audits had not picked up the problems with training and risk assessments. Some daily safety audit forms did not record findings, making progress difficult to monitor.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed however, systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate safety was effectively managed.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
- 01Which residents currently need fluid or weight monitoring, and what exact action will staff take if their intake or weight changes?
- 02Have all staff completed and refreshed training in safeguarding, fire safety, the Mental Capacity Act and health and safety?
- 03What training has the cook received for soft diets and swallowing difficulties?
- 04How will the home check that risk assessments and care plans remain accurate and consistent?
- 05How would staffing, cooking, cleaning and activities change if the home increased from 3 residents towards its 30-place capacity?
This was an unannounced inspection covering Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, including the premises and infection control; no separate Caring rating was given and only 3 people were living at the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 January 2024 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.
The story over the years
Every inspection of Amberley House - London
6 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2023Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Another option
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.
Nearby
Other care homes near London
Good
Bourne Hill Care Home
London, N13 · 0.4 km
ResidentialDementia
Rated 6 years agocare home
Hazel House
London, N13 · 0.4 km
Residential
Rated 3 years agocare home
The Hollies
London, N13 · 0.7 km
ResidentialDementia
Rated 5 years agocare home
Woodlands
London, N13 · 0.7 km
ResidentialDementia
Rated 5 years agocare home
The Conifers Healthcare Limited
London, N13 · 0.7 km
NursingDementia
Rated 9 years agocare home