You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 3 October 2018

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 4, 5 and 7 September 2018. At the last inspection in June 2017 we looked at the five key questions and identified six breaches of the regulations. The overall rating was “Requires improvement”. The rating for safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led was “Requires improvement”.

The breaches of the regulations were regarding, the care and treatment of people, staffing, nutrition and hydration, person centred care, dignity and respect and systems and processes. We also recommended that the home sought guidance in respect of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This recommendation was followed.

For four of the breaches, we issued ‘Warning Notices’ against the service and required the provider to ensure the breaches were met by 27 August 2017. These breaches were regarding the care and treatment of people, staffing, nutrition and hydration and person-centred care. The provider sent us a report to say how they had met these breaches and we checked that they had followed their action plan. At this inspection we found that the terms of the ‘Warning Notices’ and the breaches of regulations identified in June 2017 were met.

George Potter House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is located in Battersea, south London and registered to provide care and support for 69 people who require nursing or personal care support.

The home had a registered manager. 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 in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People said they experienced a pleasant, friendly and relaxed atmosphere at the home. This was created by the staff and people and their relatives were also satisfied with the care and support provided. They thought there were enough staff who met people’s needs in a thoughtful, kind way.

The home’s recording, auditing and quality assurance systems were kept up to date and now monitored and assessed the quality of the service provided. The information was clearly recorded, easy to understand and reviewed regularly.

People had access to community based health care professionals as required. Staff also discussed health needs with people and provided them with balanced diets and protected them from risks regarding nutrition and hydration. The meals served addressed people’s likes, dislikes and preferences.

Most people said they enjoyed the meals, which were of good quality and there was a variety of choices provided. People were supported, by staff to eat their meals and drink at their own pace and enjoy the experience.

The home provided a safe environment for people to live and staff to work in. It was clean and well-maintained.

Staff knew the people they supported well and were appropriately skilled and trained to meet people’s needs. They also understood their responsibility to treat people equally, respect their diversity and human rights and recognise and respect people’s differences. People said they were fairly treated.

The Mental Capacity Act and DoLS required the provider to submit applications to a ‘Supervisory body’ for authority. Appropriate applications had been submitted by the provider and applications under DoLS been authorised, and the provider was complying with the conditions applied to the authorisation.

Staff said the registered manager and organisation provided good support and they had opportunities for career advancement.

People said the registered manager and staff were approachable, responded to them and asked their opinions.

Inspection areas



Updated 3 October 2018

The service was safe.

People said they felt safe. There were appropriate numbers of skilled staff that followed effective safeguarding, infection control and risk assessment procedures.

Lessons were learnt when things went wrong.

People�s medicine was administered safely and records were up to date. Medicine was audited, safely stored and disposed of if no longer required.



Updated 3 October 2018

The service was effective.

People received care and support from well-trained and qualified staff. Their care plans monitored food and fluid intake and balanced diets were provided. The home was decorated and laid out to meet people�s needs and preferences.

The home had Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) policies and procedures and staff were provided with training. People underwent mental capacity and DoLS assessments and �Best interests� meetings were arranged as required.

Staff teams worked well together internally and across organisations.



Updated 3 October 2018

The service was caring.

People felt valued, respected and were involved in planning and decision making about their care. The care was centred on people�s individual needs.

Staff knew people�s backgrounds, interests and personal preferences well and understood their cultural needs. They provided support in a kind, professional, caring and attentive way that went beyond their job descriptions. They were patient and gave continuous encouragement when supporting people.



Updated 3 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People had their support needs assessed and agreed with them and their families. They chose and joined in with a range of recreational activities, if they wished. Their care plans identified the support they needed and it was provided.

People told us that any concerns raised with the home or organisation were discussed and addressed as a matter of urgency.

Staff were trained to meet people�s end of life needs.



Updated 3 October 2018

The service was well led

There were robust systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service people received. People and their relatives were involved in these processes and in the development of the service.

There was a clear vision and positive culture within the home that was focussed on people as individuals. They were enabled to make decisions in an encouraging and inclusive atmosphere. People were familiar with who the registered manager and staff were and encouraged to put their views forward.

Staff were well supported by the registered manager and management team and advancement opportunities were available to them.