You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Homefield Court. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 20 April 2017

Our inspection of Homefield Court took place on 11 January 2016. We returned to the home on 2 February 2016 to obtain further information. This was an unannounced inspection.

Homefield Court is a care home situated in Brent which is registered to provide care for to up to 24 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people living at the home, the majority of whom were living with dementia or mental health needs.

We last inspected Homefield Court on 10 December 2015 when we found that there were regulatory breaches in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and fit and proper persons employed. At this inspection we found these breaches had been addressed.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who lived at the home told us that they felt safe, and this was confirmed by a friend of a person whom we spoke with. People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff members had received training in safeguarding, and were able to demonstrate their understanding of what this meant for the people they were supporting.

The home had arrangements in place to ensure people’s safety. However, we found that risk assessments did not always reflect the information and guidance for staff that was included in people’s care plans. The registered manager told us that this was because people's conditions were stable but that they would develop assessments for potential risks.

Medicines at the home were well managed. People’s medicines were stored, managed and given to them appropriately. Records of medicines were well maintained. Regular health checks had taken place.

Staff at the home supported people in a caring and respectful way, and responded promptly to meet their needs and requests. There were enough staff members on duty to meet the physical and other needs of people living at the home. People who remained in their rooms were regularly checked on.

Staff who worked at the home received regular relevant training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They received regular supervision from a manager to ensure that they were supported in their roles. Checks in relation to suitability of staff had been carried out prior to appointment.

The home was meeting the requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Information about people’s capacity to make decisions was contained in people’s care plans. Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been made to the relevant local authority where people were unable to make decisions. Staff members had received training undertaken training in MCA and DoLS.

People’s nutritional needs were well met. Meals were nutritionally balanced and met individual requirements as outlined in people’s care plans. Alternatives were offered where required, and drinks and snacks were offered to people throughout the day. People told us that they enjoyed the food.

The home environment was suitable for the needs of the people who lived there. We saw that a number of improvements had been made including refurbishment of bathrooms and communal areas.

The home provided a range of individual and group activities for people to participate in throughout the week. Staff members engaged people supportively to participate in activities.

People knew what to do if they had a complaint. We saw that complaints had been dealt with quickly and to people’s satisfaction.

Care documentation showed that people’s health needs were regularly reviewed. The home liaised with health professionals to ensure that people received the support that they needed.

There were systems in place to review and monitor the quality of the serv

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 20 April 2017

Aspects of the service were not safe. Risk assessments for people did not always reflect information that was contained within their care plans.

Medicines were well managed and recorded.

Staff members had received training in safeguarding and understood their roles in keeping people safe.



Updated 20 April 2017

The service was effective. Staff members had received regular supervision and training to ensure that they were effective in their roles.

The home was meeting the requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005.Applications had been made for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations to ensure that people were not unduly restricted in their best interests.

People told us that they enjoyed the food provided at the home and we saw that people were offered choices that met their individual preferences.



Updated 20 April 2017

The service was caring. People who used the service were satisfied with the care provided by staff.

Staff members spoke positively about the people whom they supported, and we observed that interactions between staff members and people who lived at the home were caring and respectful.

People had been supported to identify their wishes regarding care at the end of life.



Updated 20 April 2017

The service was responsive. Care plans were up to date and person centred and included guidance for staff to support them in meeting people’s needs.

People were able to participate in a wide range of individual and group activities.

The home had a complaints procedure and people knew how to complain. Complaints had been managed effectively.



Updated 20 April 2017

The service was well-led. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and we saw that these were evaluated with improvements made where required.

The registered manager and deputy manager were approachable and available to people who used the service, staff members and visitors.

People and staff members told us that they felt that the home was well managed.