CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Agnes House - Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate safeguarding arrangements and effective medicines systems. Some bathroom areas had old and worn fixtures that might present an infection risk, with refurbishment planned.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were reviewed and individualised. Staff had suitable training and supervision, people received support with food and healthcare, and the home followed the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff promoted dignity, privacy, choice and cultural and religious preferences. Inspectors observed attentive and caring support, and people were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's preferences, interests and support needs, including how to help if someone became upset or anxious. People had house meetings and a complaints process, but the report described only a small range of activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had established quality checks, an open culture and links with health and social care professionals. The manager used feedback and audits to identify and address issues.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Agnes House - Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some bathrooms needing refurbishment.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 March 2019. One adult social care inspector and one assistant inspector observed care, spoke with staff, health professionals and the manager, and reviewed care records, medicines, staffing, complaints, audits and safety records. Three people were briefly met, as people did not want to speak at length.
The home was supporting 13 people recovering from mental health conditions, with space for up to 15. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans and good links with health professionals. Staff were described as kind, respectful and able to support people in a personalised way.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the home met the relevant legal requirements and provided a good standard of care, although Good does not mean every part was perfect.
Kind, personalised support
Staff knew people well and provided care based on their wishes, interests and needs. Inspectors saw staff being attentive, caring and responsive.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were followed so that suitable staff were employed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. We observed staffing levels were sufficient.” from the report
Good care planning
People had individual care plans with detailed information about their preferences and how staff should support them.
“Each person had an individualised care plan which contained details of known preferences and interests alongside support needs.” from the report
Effective health support
The home arranged healthcare appointments and worked with professionals including mental health services, community nurses and social workers.
“People were supported by the home to receive consistent care through good communication with external agencies and professionals such as district nurses, social work and psychiatry.” from the report
Positive management
The manager used audits, surveys and feedback to monitor the service and address shortfalls. Staff said the home was managed well and had an open culture.
“The registered manager used clear and established processes to review the quality of the service provided, they told us they strove to continually improve the service.” from the report
Bathrooms needed refurbishment
minorSome bathroom fixtures were old and worn and might present an infection risk. The manager said refurbishment was planned, but the report does not give a clear timescale.
“Some bathroom areas might present a risk of infection due to old and worn fixtures.” from the report
Limited activities and goal setting
minorPeople had a small range of activities. The report also noted there was no formal plan or goal setting to support development of independent living skills.
“People had a small range of activities to engage with including pet therapy and access to exercise machines.” from the report
- 01What work has been completed on the old and worn bathroom fixtures, and when will the remaining refurbishment be finished?
- 02What activities are currently available, and how do you match them to each person's interests and abilities?
- 03How will you help my relative develop independent living skills, given the report says there was no formal plan or goal setting?
- 04How will you involve my relative in reviewing their care plan and making decisions about their support?
- 05How do you monitor medicines, staffing levels and safeguarding concerns on an ongoing basis?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection of all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the care home's premises; the previous inspection in June 2016 was also rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 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 Agnes House - Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Agnes House - Residential Care Home →
- June 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 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 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.