CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Apna House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and staff understood how to reduce them. Staff were trained to support medicines, and checks were made on medicines records.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff understood the importance of consent and worked within the Mental Capacity Act principles. People's food, training and access to healthcare were well supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said they liked the staff and inspectors saw respectful relationships. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were individual and regularly reviewed. The home supported activities, religious preferences, cultural needs and communication in accessible ways.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff spoke positively about the management. The provider used meetings, spot checks, reports and a risk register to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the home larger than current best practice guidance.
The CQC carried out a planned but unannounced inspection on 11 July 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, managers, care staff and the cook. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment and training records, and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people felt safe and were supported by staff who knew their needs. Medicines, risks, food, healthcare, consent and safeguarding were managed well. People were treated with kindness, privacy and dignity, and their independence and choices were encouraged.
Care was personalised and reviewed with people. The home supported activities, religious needs and communication in people's preferred languages. Managers had systems to monitor quality and act on improvements. The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in January 2017. Safe had improved from Requires Improvement to Good, while Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led remained Good.
Stable staff team
Inspectors found a small, stable staff team, which helped provide continuity of care. Staff were available to meet people's needs.
“There was a small and stable staff team at Apna House, this enabled continuity of care with any staff absences for leave and sickness, covered within the staff team” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's preferences, goals and risks. Staff knew people well and reviewed care with them.
“People's care records were person centred and guided staff on the way they preferred their care and support to be provided.” from the report
Respect and independence
People were encouraged to make choices and take part in household tasks. Staff respected privacy and dignity.
“People's privacy and dignity was respected, and their independence was maintained and encouraged.” from the report
Cultural and communication support
The home used staff who could communicate in people's preferred languages and provided some information in Bengali and easy-read formats.
“The daily menu was also produced in Bengali to support people's accessibility and there was various information produced in easy read formats” from the report
Quality monitoring
Managers used spot checks, monthly reports, meetings and a risk register to monitor standards and follow up actions.
“Any action identified were recorded on a risk register, which was then checked the next month to ensure actions had been taken.” from the report
Larger than current best-practice guidance
minorThe home was registered for 13 people and accommodated 12 at the inspection. Inspectors noted that it was larger than current best practice guidance, although they said the design and setting reduced the impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How would you assess and support my relative's particular mental health, autism or learning disability needs?
- 02What progress has been made with making the garden more accessible to people with limited mobility?
- 03Has the planned staff lift been installed, and how are changing mobility needs supported now?
- 04How are medicines records and any 'when required' medicines checked today?
- 05How are residents involved in reviews, activities and decisions about their care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the home's premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 August 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but the safe rating was Requires Improvement because some risks were not fully managed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 18 October 2016. Inspectors spoke with 10 of the 12 people living at the home, observed daily care and spoke with staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment files and quality checks.
People generally appeared relaxed and comfortable. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, medicines given as prescribed, kind care and support for people's privacy, dignity, culture and faith. People had access to health professionals and could raise complaints or suggestions.
The main weakness was safety. Some risks had not been fully assessed or managed in writing, and staff were not always confident about supporting one person's needs. Activities were available but did not meet everyone's wishes. The overall rating was Good, but Safe was rated Requires Improvement.
The previous inspection found two legal breaches about restrictions on people's liberty and notifications to the CQC. This inspection found that the required improvements had been made and those breaches were fully met.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Staff had been recruited using checks intended to help ensure they were suitable to work with people.
“People were supported by adequate numbers of staff who had been subject to robust recruitment checks.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed treating people with kindness and compassion. They respected privacy and dignity and supported people to do as much as possible for themselves.
“We observed staff treating people with kindness and compassion, and the atmosphere within the home was calm throughout the time of our inspection.” from the report
Support for health
People were supported to attend health appointments and had access to health and social care professionals. Staff kept information about appointments and health needs.
“People could be confident they would have the support they required to maintain good general health.” from the report
Listening to people
The home used meetings, surveys, a comments box and visual information to help people give feedback. Complaints and suggestions were investigated and acted on.
“This ensured people could be confident their concerns and suggestions would be heard and the appropriate action taken.” from the report
Some safety risks were not fully managed
seriousInspectors found that written risk information and staff understanding were not always strong enough for one person's needs. A community incident had also not initially been shared with the manager or provider.
“Further work was required to ensure one person received safe and consistent support, and to minimise the impact of this person when they were unsettled of other people living at the home.” from the report
Activities did not suit everyone
needs fixingActivities had been planned, but participation was low and some people wanted more to do. Inspectors did not see activities taking place during the visit.
“Opportunities had been provided for people to undertake activities and hobbies, but these were not yet meeting the needs and wishes of all the people living at Apna House” from the report
Some staff needed more legal knowledge
needs fixingStaff followed agreed safeguards in practice, but not all staff were sure how the Mental Capacity Act applied to the people they supported. Further learning had been planned.
“Staff we spoke with were not all sure about how the Mental Capacity Act related to the people they were supporting.” from the report
- 01What written risk assessments and staff guidance are now in place for the person whose unsettled behaviour affected others?
- 02How do you make sure incidents in the community are reported promptly and shared with the right people?
- 03What activities are currently offered, and how are they matched to each person's interests and wishes?
- 04What further training have staff received about the Mental Capacity Act and people's legal safeguards?
- 05How do you check that staff record and follow people's health support plans consistently?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including all five rating areas, with detailed checks of selected care plans, medicines, staff files and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 2017 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 Apna House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 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.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 November 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.