Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Jewish Care

Sunridge Court

76 The Ridgeway, London, NW11 8PT

Goodpublished 4 November 2023, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Medicines, safeguarding, risk assessments, equipment checks and recruitment were generally managed safely. Inspectors recommended better recording of loose medicines when people are admitted, and some people reported occasional delays with call bells.
Effective?
Good
People's needs were assessed before admission. Staff received induction, training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink, healthcare and lawful decision-making.
Caring?
Good
People and relatives said staff were caring. Inspectors saw polite interactions, respect for privacy and dignity, support for independence, and help for people to follow their faith.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans were personalised and reviewed when needs changed. People could take part in activities, communicate their choices, raise complaints and record their end-of-life wishes.
Well-led?
Good
Inspectors found a positive and open culture, clear management arrangements and systems for checking quality and learning from incidents. People, relatives and staff were involved through meetings and feedback.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2023

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor recording and call-bell issues.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 September 2023. One inspector and one Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines, safeguarding, risk management, staffing, training, nutrition and healthcare support were generally handled well.

There were some areas to improve. Recording of loose medicines for new admissions could have been better. Some people said call bells were occasionally answered slowly, and the home had identified a carpet and privacy curtain needing attention. The rating means the home was meeting the required standards overall, but it was not judged perfect.

What inspectors praised

  • Personalised care

    Care plans included people's needs, preferences, life history and interests. Staff were updated about changes and supported people in ways they liked.

    “People's needs and preferences were recorded in electronic care plans. These reflected people's individual needs making them person-centred.” from the report

  • Kind and respectful staff

    People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff interact politely and respect privacy, dignity and independence.

    “People were well treated and supported by staff. We observed staff working in a professional way, interacting politely with people and relatives.” from the report

  • Safe medicines systems

    Medicines records and audits were generally in order. Staff had training and regular competency checks, and controlled medicines were stored correctly.

    “Medicine Administration Record (MAR) sheets were completed appropriately. MARs contained information about people's medicines, dosages and when people should take them.” from the report

  • Activities and social contact

    People could choose from activities and inspectors saw people taking part in quizzes, artwork and table tennis. One-to-one support was also provided.

    “We observed people taking part in activities, playing table tennis with staff and taking part in quizzes and artwork.” from the report

  • Improved safety rating

    The Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Earlier problems with some medicines documentation had been addressed.

    “At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Loose medicines records

    needs fixing

    Inspectors said records for newly admitted people who arrived with loose medicines could have been better. The manager acted immediately and introduced a template.

    “We found information to record newly admitted people with loose medicines could have been better recorded.” from the report

  • Occasional call-bell delays

    needs fixing

    Some people said call bells were sometimes answered slowly. The home said it was addressing problems with the call-bell system and staff handheld devices.

    “One person told us, "Mostly they respond quickly. Occasionally it takes a long time.” from the report

  • Premises repairs

    minor

    Inspectors identified a carpet and a privacy curtain that needed attention. The home had an action plan for these issues.

    “The premises were decorated to a good standard, though there were some issues requiring attention, such as a carpet and a privacy curtain.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now record loose medicines when a new person is admitted, and how is this checked?
  2. 02What changes have been made to the call-bell system and handheld devices, and what are the current response times?
  3. 03Have the carpet and privacy curtain identified by inspectors been repaired or replaced?
  4. 04How are people's faith, dietary needs and cultural preferences reflected in their daily care?
  5. 05How are relatives involved when care plans or end-of-life wishes are reviewed?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises, and the previous ratings were reviewed for comparison. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Sunridge Court

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. November 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Sunridge Court →

  2. February 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  3. April 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
  4. December 2021

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 2021.

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.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Same provider

Other services run by Jewish Care

8 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Otto Schiff

London, NW11
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 months agocare home

Rosetrees

London, N11
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near London

All in Barnet

Otto Schiff

London, NW11 · 0.5 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 months agocare home

Magnolia Court

London, NW2 · 0.6 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained