CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by The London Borough of Hillingdon
Colham Road
3 Colham Road, Uxbridge, UB8 3UR
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicine records and storage were not always managed safely, although inspectors found no evidence that anyone had been harmed. Infection-control procedures were available but were not always followed, including the disposal of protective equipment and cleaning of some areas.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's complex health, nutrition and communication needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff had relevant training and worked with health professionals, although the sensory room was no longer in use.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They knew how to understand subtle body language and used different ways to offer choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, regularly reviewed and followed. People were supported with activities, relationships, cultural needs and end-of-life care, but a lack of dedicated vehicles limited some outside activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as supportive and open. Audits, meetings and action plans were used to monitor quality and respond to concerns.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Colham Road is rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because medicines and infection-control procedures were not always handled safely.
Inspectors visited without notice on 10 October 2023. They met all 11 people living at the home, observed care, checked the environment, medicines and records, and spoke with staff, seven relatives and a visiting professional.
The home was caring, effective, responsive and well-led. Staff knew people well, supported communication and choices, provided personalised care, and worked with families and health professionals. There were enough suitably trained staff, with good staff retention.
The main problems were with medicines records and storage, and with some infection-control practices. Some personal protective equipment was put in the wrong bins and some areas needed deep cleaning. The sensory room was also being used for storage, and limited accessible transport reduced some community activities.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the home was performing well overall. However, Safe was rated Requires Improvement, which means there was limited assurance about safety and an increased risk that people could be harmed. The previous overall rating in 2017 was Good, but the Safe rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were gentle, caring and attentive. They understood how people communicated without words and involved families in decisions.
“The staff interactions with people were kind, supportive and caring.” from the report
Strong health support
The home worked closely with doctors, nurses, dietitians and other professionals. Staff had specialist training for people's complex health conditions.
“The staff worked with other healthcare professionals to make sure people's needs were assessed, monitored, and met.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans recorded people's gestures and facial expressions, helping staff understand their wishes, discomfort and choices.
“Staff had created comprehensive communication care plans which recorded different physical gestures and facial expressions and what these meant for each person.” from the report
Medicines records and storage
seriousSome medicine records were not up to date and some medicines were not stored safely. Inspectors found no evidence of harm, but said this increased the risk of errors and harm.
“Medicines were not always managed in a safe way. We identified concerns with some records about medicines and the storage of some medicines.” from the report
Infection-control practice
needs fixingStaff did not always follow the home's infection-control procedures. Some protective equipment went into open wastepaper bins instead of clinical waste bins, and some areas needed deep cleaning.
“There were also some areas which needed deep cleaning.” from the report
Sensory room unavailable
minorThe dedicated sensory room was being used for storage, so people could not use its equipment and resources. The manager said they were trying to raise funds for a replacement facility.
“People living at the service would benefit from regular access to a more suitable sensory facility at the service.” from the report
Limited accessible transport
minorThere were no dedicated vehicles at the time of inspection. Hiring vehicles was possible but costly, which limited access to some events outside the home.
“At the time of the inspection, there were not dedicated vehicles for the service. This limited how easily people could access events outside of the home.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make medicine records and medicine storage safe and consistently up to date?
- 02How are you checking that staff now dispose of protective equipment correctly and complete the required deep cleaning?
- 03What is the current plan and timescale for bringing the sensory room back into use?
- 04How do you arrange accessible transport, and how often can residents take part in activities outside the home?
- 05What follow-up checks have been completed on the action plans sent to CQC after this inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control, with the previous ratings from 2017 reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 November 2023 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 Colham Road
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2010.
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.
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.
Other services run by The London Borough of Hillingdon
2 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.