CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Austin Rose Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safe recruitment, detailed risk assessments and safe medicines management. People said they felt safe, and the home had systems for responding to incidents and safeguarding concerns.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before moving in and reflected in their care plans. Staff were trained, people enjoyed the food, and the home worked with healthcare professionals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives gave positive feedback. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect, and found that people were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and described people's preferences, routines and support needs. There were daily activities, communication needs were assessed, and the home had a complaints policy.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Audits had improved since the last inspection and were used to identify and address improvements. The manager involved people, relatives and staff in discussions and responded to issues raised.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; Austin Rose Care Home was found safe, caring and well-led, although some staff remained concerned about staffing levels.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 and 10 February 2023. Inspectors spoke with 16 people, 13 relatives and 14 staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safe medicines systems, person-centred care plans and kind, respectful care.
The inspection was partly prompted by concerns about staffing numbers and staff skills. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern, although some staff said they did not think staffing was sufficient for effective care.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and found detailed care plans and risk assessments. Staff responded to people in a timely way.
“There were enough staff to provide safe care.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were positive about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.
“Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's likes, dislikes, personal histories and routines. Staff had clear guidance about how to meet individual needs.
“Care plans documented people's likes, dislikes, personal histories and routines.” from the report
Improved management oversight
The quality of audits had improved since the previous inspection. The manager checked areas such as risk assessments, medicines and the environment, and acted when improvements were needed.
“During this inspection, the quality of audits had improved.” from the report
Staffing concerns
needs fixingAlthough inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care, some staff said staffing levels were not enough for effective care. The manager was aware of this and discussed it in team meetings.
“However, staff told us they did not think there were enough staff to provide effective care.” from the report
- 01How many staff are usually on duty on each floor and on each shift?
- 02What changes have been made in response to staff concerns about having enough staff for effective care?
- 03How are people's individual risks and care plans reviewed when their needs change?
- 04How are residents and relatives involved in decisions about care and improvements to the home?
- 05What activities are available each day, and how are they adapted to individual interests and communication needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control, and it reviewed both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 2023 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 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly good infection control, but PPE was not always used safely.
This was a targeted inspection on 27 January 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. The inspection was announced.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visits, staff working on separate floors, laundry handling and support for staff who were shielding or self-isolating.
They were assured about most infection control measures, including testing, admissions, cleaning, outbreak management and the infection control policy. However, PPE was not always used correctly. One staff member was seen without a mask, and other masks did not match government guidance.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a rated score for Safe.
Safer visiting arrangements
The home had a visitor room with a clear barrier and equipment to help people communicate with loved ones safely.
“A visitor room was divided by a clear wall. A microphone and speakers enabled communication during visits.” from the report
Separate staff teams
Staff were assigned to particular floors and did not mix with staff from other areas during breaks. This was intended to reduce infection spread.
“Staff were allocated to work on a specific floor and staff from different areas did not mix during their break times.” from the report
Laundry controls
The laundry had a one-way process for soiled and clean laundry. It also had a specialist machine for items used by people who tested positive for COVID-19.
“The laundry room had a one-way system for soiled laundry to enter the area and clean laundry to be processed and taken to people's rooms.” from the report
Support for staff
The registered manager kept in regular contact with staff who were shielding or self-isolating during the pandemic.
“The registered manager made regular contact with staff members who were shielding or self-isolating.” from the report
PPE was not always used correctly
needs fixingInspectors saw one staff member without a mask. They also saw other staff wearing masks in ways that did not match government guidance.
“We weren't always assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every staff member uses PPE correctly?
- 02What action was taken after inspectors saw a staff member without a mask and other staff wearing masks incorrectly?
- 03How are visits arranged now, and does the visitor room still provide safe communication?
- 04How do you keep staff from different floors from mixing during breaks?
- 05What were the home's ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care at its last full inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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.
Every inspection of Austin Rose Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 May 2018.
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.