CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ash Grange Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting and outbreak management. They were only somewhat assured that the infection-control policy was up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Ash Grange Nursing Home: targeted infection-control inspection, not rated; inspectors found mostly reassuring practice but an infection-control policy was not fully up to date.
Inspectors visited on 24 February 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. They looked at infection prevention and control in the home.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks. They also found systems to monitor staff and residents' testing and vaccination status.
The home supported people's social contact through individual visitor plans and photo cards. Staff infection-control practice was checked through competency assessments, including observed hand hygiene.
The overall service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a quality rating for the home or a full assessment of all five areas.
Visitor arrangements
People had individual visitor plans to support their social contact needs. The home also used personalised photo cards to help people stay connected with friends and relatives.
“People living at the home had individual visitor plans to make sure their social contact needs were met.” from the report
Testing and vaccination monitoring
The provider used a digital system to monitor COVID-19 test results and vaccination status for staff and residents.
“The provider utilised technology to maintain management oversight of COVID-19 test results and the vaccination status for staff and people living in the home.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
There was frequent cleaning of touch points and busy areas. Signs showed when areas had last been cleaned.
“There was frequent cleaning of touch points and high traffic areas.” from the report
Staff infection-control checks
Staff practice was checked through competency assessments, observed practice and use of an ultraviolet light device to monitor hand hygiene.
“Staff compliance with infection prevention and control procedures was monitored through a process of competency assessments.” from the report
Staff wellbeing
Staff had individual meetings to discuss concerns, and external support was available to those who might benefit from it.
“Staff wellbeing was promoted; individual meetings provided the opportunity to discuss concerns.” from the report
Policy updates
needs fixingThe infection-control policy did not include links to supporting policies or national guidance. Some individual policies had not been reviewed within the provider's planned timescale.
“The policy did not include links and reference to supporting polices or national guidance.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the infection-control policy since this inspection?
- 02Have all individual infection-control policies now been reviewed within their scheduled timescales?
- 03How do you currently check that staff follow hand hygiene and other infection-control procedures?
- 04How are visitors' individual plans updated if a person's social contact needs change?
- 05How do you monitor current testing and vaccination information for staff and residents?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide a full assessment or ratings for all five questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 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, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 9 April 2019. The inspection team spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable training, access to healthcare, kind care and personalised records. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities.
The home had been rated Requires Improvement overall at the previous inspection on 27 April 2018. Inspectors found that the required improvements had been made, including improvements in privacy, dignity, caring, responsiveness and leadership.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to respond to people's needs and saw that staff were not rushed.
“We saw there were enough staff to respond when people needed them.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Records and discussions indicated that people received medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were supported patiently and their privacy, dignity, choices and independence were respected.
“We saw people were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care records included people's wishes, choices and life histories. Different activities were organised daily and people could choose how to spend their time.
“Care records were personalised and detailed people's wishes, choices and life histories.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found clear management arrangements, regular checks and an improvement plan. People, relatives and staff said the management team was open and approachable.
“The provider and registered manager had a good oversight of the service and had systems in place to identify and manage risks to the quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What changes have been made since the previous Requires Improvement rating, and how do you check that these improvements are being maintained?
- 02How will you assess and record my relative's risks, choices, communication needs and changing health needs?
- 03How do you make sure medicines are given safely and on time, including medicines prescribed to be given as needed?
- 04What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how would you adapt them if their interests or abilities changed?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in decisions about consent, DoLS applications and end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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 Ash Grange Nursing Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 October 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.