CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Charles House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention arrangements, including PPE, testing, cleaning and visitor safety. They were only somewhat assured that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date because staff had not been individually risk assessed for COVID-19.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls, but staff risk assessments were not up to date.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, testing and personal protective equipment. Cleaning schedules included high-touch areas and sanitising the home every two hours.
The home had plans for people's COVID-19 risks, including support to self-isolate. It had also considered activities during lockdown and was developing a sensory room.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
PPE and staff training
Staff were using personal protective equipment in line with guidance and had been trained to use it correctly.
“Staff wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in line with guidance and had received training in using PPE correctly.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
The home had increased cleaning, including regular sanitising of frequently touched areas.
“Cleaning schedules were enhanced to include high touch areas and two hourly sanitisation of the home.” from the report
Support during lockdown
Care plans considered people's individual COVID-19 risks and how they could be supported to self-isolate. Activities had also been considered during lockdown restrictions.
“Care plans considered people's individual risk to COVID-19 and how to support them to self isolate.” from the report
Staff risk assessments
needs fixingStaff had not been risk assessed for COVID-19 and their individual needs. Inspectors signposted the provider to resources to improve this approach.
“Staff were not risk assessed to consider COVID-19 and their individual needs.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now had individual COVID-19 risk assessments, and how often are these reviewed?
- 02What changes were made to the infection prevention and control policy after the inspection?
- 03How are visitors managed and how is infection risk checked before they enter the home?
- 04How often are high-touch areas cleaned and the home sanitised now?
- 05What activities and sensory-room facilities are currently available to people living in the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 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, January 2020
Charles House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home’s leadership and monitoring needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 December 2019. One inspector spoke with a person, four staff members, the registered manager and two relatives. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found people were safe. Staffing, recruitment, risk management, infection control and medicines support were suitable. People received personalised care, had choices, and were treated with dignity. Relatives gave positive feedback.
The main weakness was oversight by the provider. Provider checks had not been completed since May 2019. Medicines records were not always consistent, and some risk and medicines guidance needed more detail. The overall rating was Good, but well-led was Requires Improvement.
Compared with the previous inspection, the ratings for Effective and Responsive improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Safe and Caring stayed Good. Well-led stayed Requires Improvement, while the previous overall rating of Requires Improvement improved to Good.
Safe staffing and care
Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff on duty, with staff who understood people’s needs and risks.
“At the time of our site visit, we found there were enough suitably recruited staff on duty to meet people's needs and to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with patience, dignity and respect. Relatives spoke positively about the staff’s approach.
“Our own observations showed staff treating people with patience and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans and activities reflected people’s communication, interests and preferences. Staff understood non-verbal communication.
“Where people communicated non-verbally staff knew how to engage with them.” from the report
Improved environment
The home had added a living area, redecorated bedrooms, provided new furniture and created a personalised safe space.
“At this inspection we found there had been several improvements made around the home.” from the report
Provider checks were not regular
needs fixingThe provider had not completed its own checks since May 2019. This meant oversight was less regular than before.
“The provider completed their own audits of the home, however, records we looked at showed the provider had not completed their checks since May 2019.” from the report
Medicines records and storage checks
needs fixingMedicine stock balances were not always carried forward clearly, making them harder to check. The medicine cabinet temperature was not being monitored until this was corrected during the inspection.
“There was some inconsistency with carrying forward balances from previous months.” from the report
Some risk guidance needed more detail
needs fixingBehaviour support guidance for one person was not consistently detailed enough. For medicines hidden in food, there was no evidence that a pharmacist had been consulted about safe food choices.
“There was some inconsistency concerning management behaviour strategies for one person that required more detail for staff with clear instructions on how to support the person safely.” from the report
- 01How often are provider-level audits now completed, and how are any problems tracked until they are fixed?
- 02How do you check medicine stock balances and cabinet temperatures each day or month?
- 03What written guidance is in place for safely supporting people whose behaviour may put them or others at risk?
- 04If a person’s medicine is given hidden in food, which health professionals have confirmed that this is safe?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, and the report says Effective and Responsive improved to Good while Well-led remained Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 2020 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 Charles House
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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.