CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 235 Rugeley Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safety checks and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained and worked with health professionals, while supporting people to develop skills and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed being kind, respectful and equal in their interactions. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, communication needs and goals. People were supported to keep in touch with family, take part in activities and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management, regular audits and a positive, open culture. The home used feedback and incidents to identify improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2023
235 Rugeley Road is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the last inspection.
Inspectors visited on 9 February 2023. They spoke with both people living at the home, six staff members and five health professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean premises and suitable infection control. People were treated with kindness and respect, and were supported to make choices and become more independent.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in March 2019. The home had been in breach of safety and governance regulations at that time. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and said the home was no longer in breach.
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored and given safely. Staff had individual guidance and regular checks of their medicines practice.
“People received their medicines safely. They were ordered, received, stored, and administered appropriately.” from the report
Promoting independence
The self-contained flats and adapted kitchen equipment helped people develop everyday skills and use their homes more independently.
“The provider had created 7 self-contained flats within the home to support people to live independently.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw compassionate interactions and found that people were involved in decisions about their support.
“We observed staff were offering care and support that was compassionate and kind.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The home had regular checks, improvement plans and systems for learning from accidents, complaints and feedback.
“Regular governance checks and audits were carried out by staff at the home and the provider and these were effective at identifying where improvements could be made.” from the report
Previous safety problems
needs fixingAt the previous inspection, risk management and medicines were not safe enough. Inspectors said these problems had been addressed by this inspection and the home was no longer in breach.
“At our last inspection the provider was not ensuring people were kept safe from risks to their safety and medicines were not safely stored and administered.” from the report
Previous governance problems
needs fixingThe previous inspection found that management systems had not identified safety concerns. Inspectors found enough improvement at this inspection and said the home was no longer in breach.
“At our last inspection we found the providers systems had not identified concerns with how risks were being managed and procedures to keep people safe were not being followed.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicines remain stored, administered and recorded safely?
- 02How would you support my relative to develop independence in daily tasks such as cooking?
- 03How are restrictions on a person's freedom reviewed, and how do you involve them and their family in those decisions?
- 04How many staff would support my relative each day, and what training would they have for acquired brain injury?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in planning future end of life wishes?
This was an inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the visit took place on 9 February 2023 and activity continued until 9 March 2023. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 April 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but safety and management systems were not reliable enough.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 25 February 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, incident reports, quality checks and staff files.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found kind staff who understood people's needs, supported choices and promoted independence. Care was effective, responsive and caring, and staffing levels had improved since the last inspection.
There were important safety problems. Medicines were not always given as prescribed, medicines and chemicals were not always stored securely, and referrals for specialist help with increased risks had been delayed. Quality checks had not found these problems, and some required paperwork was incomplete.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 5 October 2017.
Kind and compassionate staff
Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance and taking time to talk with people. Staff knew people's lives and how they preferred to be supported.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Good staff training
Staff had induction training, regular updates, supervision and meetings. Inspectors found they had the skills to meet people's needs.
“People received support from staff that had been trained and had the skills to support them effectively.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were offered choices about meals, clothing, drinks and where to spend their time. Staff encouraged independence and respected people's decisions.
“We saw staff offering choices with drinks, clothing and where people wanted to spend their time.” from the report
Improved staffing
The staffing shortfall found at the previous inspection had been addressed. Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely during this visit.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made the required improvements.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousOne medicine was crushed even though the manufacturer's instructions said it should be swallowed whole, and there was no evidence that this had been checked with a pharmacist. A medicine refrigerator was also left unlocked.
“There was no guidance in place to say this had been checked with a pharmacist and was safe to crush.” from the report
Risks were not acted on promptly
seriousReferrals for specialist support were delayed when risks from behaviours that challenged increased. Inspectors said this exposed people to an increased risk of harm.
“Referrals for specialist support had been delayed which meant people had been exposed to an increased risk of harm from the continued behaviours.” from the report
Unsafe storage
seriousChemicals were kept in an unlocked cupboard even though a lockable facility was available. This could have allowed people to access and consume them.
“We found chemicals stored in an unlocked cupboard, where people could access these.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not identify medicines, storage, risk management and mental capacity paperwork problems. This was a breach of the good governance regulation.
“The failings in the governance systems meant there was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Limited meaningful activity
needs fixingSome people went out into the community, but others spent much of their time alone and were not engaged in meaningful activity. The new manager said this would be reviewed.
“However other people spent much of their time alone, and were not engaged in meaningful activity.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now checked to ensure they are given exactly as prescribed, including medicines that may need to be crushed?
- 02How are medicines and chemicals kept locked away, and who checks this each day?
- 03What has changed to make sure referrals for specialist help are made promptly when a person's risks increase?
- 04How does the home now check that its quality monitoring systems identify safety problems and missing mental capacity paperwork?
- 05What meaningful activities and community opportunities are now available for people who previously spent much of their time alone?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and looked at both the care provided and the home itself. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 2019 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 235 Rugeley Road
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.