CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aldridge Court Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines practice and systems for managing risks, accidents and infection control. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans were not available during the visit but were provided afterwards.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and skills needed, and people could make choices about food and drink. Inspectors found access to health professionals and appropriate support for nutrition and skin care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff supporting privacy, dignity, independence and people's choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans and reviews reflected people's needs, preferences and interests. People had access to activities, could raise complaints and received end of life support following the provider's stated standard.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager understood the service and had improvement plans, but audits had not identified all the concerns found by inspectors. The provider could not evidence how often it visited the home to check quality, and some care reviews did not show people's agreement.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home was Requires Improvement for being well-led.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 16 and 17 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, management records and how staff supported people.
Inspectors rated safe, effective, caring and responsive care as Good. They found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, respectful care, personalised care plans, activities and access to health professionals.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Audits and spot checks had not found all the concerns identified by inspectors, and the provider could not show how often it visited the home to check quality. The overall rating remained Good, as the other four areas were rated Good.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm and that medicines were given as prescribed. Staff had suitable training and guidance for medicines given when needed.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff helping people, respecting privacy and encouraging independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised activities
Care plans recorded people's needs, likes and interests. Activities included links with nearby schools and were coordinated by an activities coordinator.
“We saw that people had access to a range of planned activities which also included the home working with nearby schools.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff received regular training, supervision and support. New staff shadowed experienced staff and followed an induction that included the Care Certificate.
“We found that staff training happened regular to ensure staff had the necessary skills and competence to support people how they wanted.” from the report
Quality checks were not effective enough
needs fixingThe home's audits and spot checks had not identified all the concerns found during the inspection. The provider could not show how often it visited to check that the home was being run properly.
“We were unable to find evidence to show how frequently the provider visited the home and carried out their own quality visits” from the report
Care reviews did not show people's agreement
needs fixingRecords did not clearly show that people had been involved in, or agreed with, their care plan reviews. The manager said the review process would be improved.
“reviews did not clearly identify how people were involved as the records did not allow for people to show they had agreed” from the report
Occasional waits for toilet support
needs fixingOne person said they sometimes had to wait for staff to help them use the toilet. The manager said action would be taken, although inspectors did not find a major concern overall.
“a person told us they had to sometimes wait for staff to support them to the toilet” from the report
Some meals were not hot
minorSome people told inspectors that food was not always hot. This was raised with the manager, who followed it up with kitchen staff.
“Some people told us the food was not always hot” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to audits and spot checks since the inspection, and how do you know they are finding problems?
- 02How often does the provider now visit the home for quality checks, and where are those visits recorded?
- 03How do you record that residents and their representatives have seen and agreed with care plan reviews?
- 04What action was taken to prevent people waiting for help to use the toilet?
- 05How do you make sure meals are served at the right temperature?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the care and the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 July 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 Aldridge Court Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 March 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 Walsall
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 £1,200 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“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.