CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Acorn Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Acorn Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed during the coronavirus pandemic.
The inspection took place on 14 December 2020. It was announced and focused only on infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found that visitors were screened, people were supported to keep in touch with relatives and friends, and staffing had been increased to support isolation and social distancing. Staff had coronavirus awareness training and cleaning checks had been increased.
The home was rated “Inspected but not rated”. This was not a full inspection of the five areas used for a standard CQC rating. Inspectors were assured about the infection control measures they checked.
Visitor screening
Visitors completed a health screening questionnaire before entering, to help visits take place safely.
“A health screening questionnaire was completed when visitors arrived at the home to ensure their visit could take place safely in line with current guidance.” from the report
Keeping people connected
People were supported to stay in contact with important people through video calls and telephone calls.
“People were supported to keep in touch with others who were important to them in a variety of ways, including video and telephone calls.” from the report
Staffing and training
Staffing levels had been increased to help people isolate and keep apart where needed. Staff had also completed coronavirus awareness training.
“Staffing levels had been increased to support and encourage people to isolate and social distance to prevent the transmission of infection.” from the report
Cleaning checks
The home had increased its cleaning schedules and monitored whether staff followed its infection control policy.
“Cleaning schedules had been increased to monitor cleanliness and staff compliance with the provider's infection control policy.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control arrangements are in place now for visitors and professionals entering the home?
- 02How often are cleaning schedules checked, and how is staff compliance recorded?
- 03How are people supported to keep in touch with relatives if they need to isolate?
- 04How does the home manage testing, protective equipment and possible infection outbreaks?
- 05What is the date and outcome of the home’s most recent full CQC inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 2021 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, February 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home needed to improve its quality checks and management oversight.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 6 January 2020. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and outside health professionals. They observed care, lunch and communal areas, and checked care, risk, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and respect, and supported by staff who knew their needs. Staff were available, medicines were given as prescribed, people received healthcare support, and activities were provided. Care plans were reviewed and families were involved.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because quality checks had not found several problems, including a damaged windowsill, an unsecured clinical waste skip and incomplete records.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives said staff were caring, patient and respectful. Inspectors observed staff taking time to support people calmly and promote their dignity.
“The staff are so kind and very patient.” from the report
Good understanding of risks
Staff knew people's individual risks and what action to take. Risk assessments and safety equipment were used to reduce the chance of harm.
“People's known risks had been assessed and documented. Plans were in place to minimise the risks to protect people from unavoidable harm.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home matched activities to people's interests and supported people to use the garden, visit the community and take part in group activities.
“Care plans captured people's individual activity needs and these needs had been met.” from the report
Support with health and nutrition
Staff worked with outside health professionals and understood people's dietary risks and preferences. Inspectors found the lunchtime experience positive, with choices and support available.
“Staff were available to give assistance and support. People were offered food and drink choices.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's checks did not identify several issues found during the inspection. This included a damaged windowsill, an unsecured clinical waste skip and incomplete maintenance records.
“However, checking processes had not always identified issues we found during our inspection.” from the report
Damaged windowsill
seriousA loose, split windowsill could have caused someone to become unsteady and fall. The provider said it was replaced two days after the inspection.
“If leant on there was a risk a person could have become unsteady and fallen.” from the report
Clinical waste security
seriousA clinical waste skip near the pavement was not secured for several days. The provider confirmed after the inspection that it had been made safe.
“This meant the skip and possibly contents were accessible to the public which could be a potential risk due to soiled waste.” from the report
Incomplete records
needs fixingMaintenance records did not show when work was completed. Staff application forms did not record the end dates of previous jobs, and complaint records did not show whether complainants were satisfied.
“The maintenance book where staff entered requests for repairs was not signed and dated to demonstrate if and when work had been completed.” from the report
Feedback was not analysed
minorThe home collected feedback but had not analysed or displayed it. This made it harder to see overall satisfaction or show people how their comments were being acted on.
“However, the feedback forms had not been analysed and displayed.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the quality checks so that repairs such as the damaged windowsill are found and followed through promptly?
- 02How do you make sure clinical waste is secured at all times, including when contractors are working?
- 03Can you show us how maintenance requests are recorded, dated and checked as completed?
- 04How do you record whether a person who made a complaint was satisfied with the outcome?
- 05How are staff employment gaps checked now that new application forms are being introduced?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; Well-led remained Requires Improvement from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 2020 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 Acorn Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 August 2011.
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 Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.