CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Community Living & Support Services Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicine administration records did not always match prescribers' instructions. Guidance for medicines given when needed was unclear, and storage temperatures had not been checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received relevant training and support. People were supported with food, healthcare, choice and decision-making, including through the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, compassionate and respectful. They understood people's preferences and supported their dignity, privacy and independence, although conversations in communal rooms were not always private.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was based on people's individual needs, preferences and goals. People were supported with activities, family contact, communication and accessible information.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a registered manager and a generally open, person-centred culture. Audits identified most shortfalls, but they had not identified the need to check medicine storage temperatures, and feedback to people about actions taken had not always been provided.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Community Living & Support Services Limited was rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines procedures needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 14 November 2018. One inspector spoke with four people, a relative, the registered manager and two care staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files, training records, audits and other documents.
The overall rating was Good, as it was at the previous inspection in November 2015. However, the safe rating had fallen to Requires Improvement. Medicine records did not always match prescriptions, guidance for medicines given when needed was unclear, and storage temperatures were not checked.
The other four areas were rated Good. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, support with health and nutrition, personalised activities and goals, and generally effective leadership. The report said there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff understood what mattered to people and supported them when they were distressed.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Independence
People were encouraged to develop everyday skills and make their own choices. Some had their own flats and were supported with cooking, washing and travel skills.
“People had their privacy, dignity and independence promoted.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to follow their interests, keep in touch with family and work towards personal goals.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities that were socially and culturally relevant.” from the report
Staff training and health support
Staff received training for people's specific needs and worked with health professionals. People had health action plans and were supported to attend healthcare appointments.
“Staff had received the training they required to do their jobs and they also received regular supervision and appraisal.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousMedicine administration charts did not always match people's prescriptions. The report says records written by service staff should have been checked and signed by two staff, unless supplied by the dispensing pharmacy.
“People did not always receive their prescribed medicines safely.” from the report
Medicine storage
needs fixingThe home had not recorded the temperatures where medicines were stored. Management agreed to start checking these temperatures.
“The temperature of the areas where medicines were stored had not been taken.” from the report
Privacy in communal areas
minorThe building layout meant that conversations held in communal rooms were not always private. The manager said staff prompted people to use their rooms for private discussions.
“The layout of the building meant conversations held in communal rooms were not always private.” from the report
Feedback to families
minorSome relatives were not always happy with communication from management. Feedback about actions taken had not always been given to people or their relatives.
“Feedback on actions taken had not been provided to people or their relatives.” from the report
- 01Have medicine administration records now been supplied by the pharmacy or checked and signed by two staff?
- 02How do you make sure guidance for medicines given when needed clearly explains when they should be given?
- 03How often are medicine storage temperatures checked, and where are these checks recorded?
- 04How will private conversations be protected when people are using communal rooms?
- 05How do you give people and relatives feedback about actions taken after their concerns or survey responses?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the overall rating stayed Good from 2015, but the safe rating fell to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 2018 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 Community Living & Support Services Limited
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Community Living & Support Services Limited →
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 April 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 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.