The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Mary's Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

88 Warham Road, South Croydon, Surrey, CR2 6LB (020) 8688 2072

Provided and run by:
Thobani Services Ltd

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

This assessment took place between 18 March and 10 April 2026. Mary’s Home is a care home providing care to older people, some of whom live with dementia. Mary’s Home was also registered for home care however the provider has submitted an application to CQC to deregister this element of their care provision. At the time of our assessment there were 42 people using the service.

The last inspection rated the service as Good (published 8th October 2018). We carried out this assessment because of the time since the last inspection.

The provider had a positive learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met people’s needs, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers ensured staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those who were important to people to take decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

6 September 2018

During a routine inspection

Mary's Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. Mary’s Home does not provide nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. The service supports up to 29 people with mental health issues. There were 25 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection

People were protected from abuse and staff received training in safeguarding adults at risk and understood their responsibilities. The provider followed suitable processes for any allegation of abuse to keep people safe.

The provider carried out recruitment checks on staff to check they were suitable to work with people. There were enough staff deployed to care for people safely and staff had time to engage with people meaningfully.

The provider managed risks relating to people’s care, including their mental health needs, through suitable risk assessment processes. Staff understood risks to people’s care and the support people required.

People’s medicines were managed safely by staff who the provider trained and checked were competent to administer medicines. The provider checked people received their medicines as prescribed.

People lived in premises which the provider maintained safely. The provider carried out a range of health and safety checks including fire safety, water hygiene and water temperatures, window restrictors, electrical and gas safety.

People were supported by staff who received the training and supervision they needed to understand people’s needs. New staff also received a suitable induction.

People’s care needs were assessed by the provider and people’s views and preferences were gathered by speaking with them. People’s care plans were based on their needs and preferences and were reviewed regularly so they were accurate and reliable to staff in following them. People’s care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, their personal history, individual preferences and interests.

People received care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider applied to deprive some people of their liberty as part of keeping them safe as part of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People enjoyed the food they received and people received food in line with their preferences and cultural needs. People were supported to maintain their health and had regular contact with a team of mental health professionals.

People liked the staff who supported them. Staff were compassionate towards people and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff were supportive of those who were in consenting relationships in the service. People were involved in decisions about their care.

People were encouraged to maintain and build their independent living skills. Some people were able to move into more independent living after receiving support from staff.

An activity officer engaged people in meaningful activities within the service. Those who were interested were supported to worship locally and a priest visited the service each week. People were supported to maintain and develop relationships which helped reduce social isolation.

A suitable complaints process was in place and the provider investigated and responded to any concerns raised.

Leadership was visible and competent with an experienced registered manager in post. The directors were accessible to people and staff, being present at the service most days. The management team carried out audits of the service to check the quality of care. Systems were in place to gather feedback from people and staff.

24 February 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 24 and 25 February 2016, the inspection was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the service. A change of provider took place in 2015.

Mary’s Home provides residential accommodation and personal care for up to 29 people with mental health related issues.

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 in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’

People’s needs were assessed and support plans were developed to respond to these areas of support. Staff provided people with the care and support as planned. Staff were aware of the risks to people’s safety, and supported them to maintain their safety. Staff supported people to manage and minimise the risks to their own safety and the safety of others.

People were helped to identify the goals they wished to achieve whilst using the service and staff supported them to progress towards these. People were supported to develop their skills to move towards more independent living. People were encouraged and supported to express their wishes and preferences, and people’s choices were respected. People were supported to pursue their hobbies and follow their interests.

Staff were trained and competent, they had training and support to develop the necessary skills and knowledge so that they could effectively care for people. Staff felt supported and spoke positively of the registered manager's support and encouragement. People’s preferences and choices were known and respected. People were supported to feel they belonged in their community.

Recruitment procedures were safe and only suitably vetted staff were employed. The service had enough suitable skilled staff available to care for people. Staff worked well with relevant healthcare professionals to obtain advice about how to support people with their mental and physical healthcare needs. Staff implemented practices that reflected the advice they received.

Staff were attentive and responsive to people, they treated them with compassion and respect. People’s views were taken into account on how they wanted to be supported. People consented to the care and support they received. People had a choice of healthy food and were encouraged to follow a healthy lifestyle.

People were cared for in line with the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). ‘Best interest meetings’ were held as required by the MCA in situations when people could not give consent, for example, for a medical procedure.

Health professionals were all complimentary of the registered manager's role in coordinating and managing the service, they had establishing and developed strong links with health and social care professionals which resulted in them establishing trust and confidence in the service. The service benefited from stable management and systems were in place to monitor and check the quality of the service provided, and actions were taken as necessary to improve the standard of care.