CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Caldene Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood risks, used walking aids appropriately, responded promptly to call bells and managed medicines safely, although medicine arrival records were initially not based on best practice.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and understood people's needs. People's food, drink and healthcare needs were supported, and staff followed professional advice about swallowing and nutrition.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, supported their personal choices and gave emotional support to relatives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and records were regularly updated. Activities, communication support and complaint handling were in place, although some people were sometimes restless or disengaged from activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture, supportive management and regular quality checks. A new provider had an action plan for improvements to the home's appearance and environment.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some medicine recording and building improvements still needed.
Inspectors visited on 4 and 5 June 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also observed care and reviewed care plans, staff records, incident records, complaints and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives generally spoke positively about the care. Inspectors found attentive staff, good support with food, medicines and health needs, and respectful relationships.
There were some smaller shortfalls. Medicine deliveries were not initially recorded in line with best practice, although this was changed during the inspection. Some parts of the building and furniture looked worn, and improvements were planned. On one occasion, reduced staff oversight in a dining room meant an argument between two people was not quickly settled.
The home was registered to provide nursing care, but was not providing it because of difficulty recruiting nurses. Managers said nobody living there had nursing needs at the time. The overall Good rating remained the same as at the previous inspection, published in December 2016.
Attentive staff
People said staff made them feel safe and had enough time to support them. Staff knew people's risks and helped them use walking aids.
“The atmosphere was relaxed, staff were not rushed, and call bells were answered promptly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw caring relationships and support that protected people's privacy, dignity and individuality.
“Staff relationships with people using the service were caring and supportive.” from the report
Personalised activities and communication
Staff used people's interests to support activities and recorded how each person communicated. Information was adapted when needed.
“Care records contained communication plans explaining how each person communicated.” from the report
Open management and quality checks
Managers were visible and approachable. Regular checks were used to monitor quality and identify improvements.
“A range of staff, including operational managers, completed comprehensive quality assurance checks on a regular basis” from the report
Medicine arrival records
needs fixingRecords of medicines arriving at the home were not initially based on best practice guidance. The manager changed the system during the inspection so two staff members would sign them in.
“Systems were in place for recording medicines arriving in the home but were not based on best practice guidelines.” from the report
Dining room oversight
needs fixingDuring a medical emergency, one dining room had less staff oversight than usual. A disagreement between two people then became more heated before it was dealt with.
“This meant a fractious conversation between two people was not diffused resulting in them becoming increasingly irritated with one another.” from the report
Worn areas and planned improvements
minorSome parts of the building and furnishings looked tired or worn. An improvement plan was in place, with work and purchases started.
“The new providers had begun to action improvements to the appearance of the building, both internally and externally as some areas and furnishings looked tired and worn.” from the report
- 01Has the new two-person medicine sign-in process been fully implemented, and how is it checked now?
- 02What improvements to worn furniture, flooring and bathrooms have been completed since the inspection?
- 03How will staff maintain oversight in both dining rooms during emergencies or other busy periods?
- 04The home was not providing nursing care at the inspection. What nursing support can you provide if my relative's needs change?
- 05How will you make sure activities remain suitable for people who are restless or disengaged?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the home was registered for nursing care but was not providing nursing care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Caldene Rest Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some room to improve activities and food information.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 October 2016. The inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers. They also observed care and checked care files, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind, respectful and helpful. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment checks, medicines managed properly and care plans that were reviewed.
There were some areas to improve. Activities were not always tailored to people's needs, and there were few dementia-friendly items in shared areas. Special Asian and African Caribbean food was not provided, although the home said this was explained during assessments and agreed to give clearer written information.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, records were complete for the people checked, and staff had received medicines training.
“Medicines were managed safely and ensured that people received their medicine as it had been prescribed by their GP.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed staff being polite, attentive and reassuring, while supporting privacy and dignity.
“We observed that interactions between staff and people were positive.” from the report
Good understanding of people's needs
Staff knew people's routines, preferences, interests and support needs. People and relatives were involved in care planning.
“Staff knew and told us about people's individual support needs, interests, people's daily routine preferences, how they liked their support to be provided” from the report
Improvement since the previous inspection
The home had addressed earlier issues involving medicines, recruitment and quality monitoring.
“At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in those areas.” from the report
Limited supervision in one lounge
needs fixingStaff were not present in the smaller lounge all the time. Inspectors saw an exchange between two people that might have become more serious, so the manager said people's needs would be reassessed and the situation monitored.
“However, in the smaller lounge staff were not present all of the time.” from the report
Activities not always individualised
needs fixingA relative or friend felt activities could better match people's needs. Inspectors also found little evidence of dementia-friendly resources such as memory books or rummage boxes.
“However, we were told by a friend of one person that they felt that activity provision could be better in that it was not always tailored to meet people's needs.” from the report
Food information needed in writing
minorSpecial Asian and African Caribbean food was not provided. The manager agreed to record this information during assessments and include it in the service user guide.
“We asked the registered manager about this who confirmed that although vegetarian options were offered, special Asian and African Caribbean food was not provided” from the report
- 01How would you tailor activities to my relative's interests, abilities and dementia needs?
- 02What dementia-friendly resources are now available in the shared areas?
- 03How do you ensure the smaller lounge is supervised and prevent conflicts between people?
- 04What food choices are available for my relative's culture, religion and dietary preferences?
- 05How will you tell us about any changes to medicines, care plans or risks?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, with observations, discussions and checks of selected records; three care files and three staff files were reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 2016 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 Caldene Rest Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 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 Sandwell
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 £1,190 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.