CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Constable House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People’s risks were assessed and staff knew how to support them safely. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable medicines checks and systems to reduce infections and learn from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were assessed and staff had training suited to the people living at the home. People were supported with food, drinks, health appointments and input from other professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people respectfully and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence. People appeared comfortable with staff and involved them in their daily lives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s preferences, needs and goals. Staff supported people to maintain relationships, access the community, pursue work or volunteering and make complaints if needed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider’s representative and senior staff checked the quality of care and listened to people’s views. There was no registered manager in post at the inspection, but steps were being taken to appoint and register one.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Constable House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with no serious concerns identified.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 20 September 2018. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, a health and social care professional and the provider’s representative. They reviewed care records, staff recruitment files, medicines records, complaints information and quality checks.
The home provides long-term accommodation and care for up to six people. Six people lived there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems and suitable checks on risks, infections, accidents and incidents.
People were involved in decisions about their care and daily lives. Staff supported independence, respected privacy and dignity, helped people attend health appointments and worked with other professionals. All five areas were rated Good, the same as at the September 2016 inspection.
Enough staff
People said staff were available when needed and had time to talk with them. Staffing was increased when people needed extra support.
“There were enough staff to care for people.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff built positive relationships with people and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“We saw staff were respectful towards people when supporting them, and people acknowledged and thanked staff for the support they received.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped plan their care and were supported to follow their preferred lifestyles, maintain relationships and work towards personal goals.
“People continued to be involved in planning their care so they received this in the best way for them.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider’s representative and senior staff carried out checks on care, medicines, training, safety and incidents.
“Records we saw showed us there were systems in place to check the quality of the care provided.” from the report
No registered manager in post
needs fixingA registered manager was not in place during the inspection. The provider was taking steps to address this, and a new manager was due to start the following week.
“A registered manager was not in place at the time of our inspection, however, the provider was taking reasonable steps to address this.” from the report
Complaints process to be promoted
minorNo complaints had been received in the previous year and people said they were happy with the care. The provider planned to promote the complaints process further.
“The provider's representative told us about plans they were making to further develop and promote the use of complaints” from the report
- 01Has the new manager started, and have they applied to become the registered manager?
- 02How will you support my relative’s specific safety risks, including any risks linked to eating, drinking or anxiety?
- 03How will my relative be involved in planning and reviewing their care and personal goals?
- 04How do you make sure medicines are given and recorded safely?
- 05How can my relative or family raise a complaint, and how will the home make this process clear to them?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the ratings remained Good from the September 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Constable House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, and said an earlier safeguarding breach had been put right.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 29 September 2016. The home provides respite accommodation for up to six adults with learning disabilities. Six people were living there on the inspection day.
Inspectors spoke with four people, one care worker and a senior carer. They reviewed care, finance and medicines records for two people, as well as complaints and compliments. The registered manager was not available during the visit.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, kind care, support for choice and independence, and clear systems for monitoring the service.
A previous inspection on 25 November 2015 found a breach linked to safeguarding people from abuse and improper treatment, including financial safeguarding. At this inspection, the provider had taken action and was meeting that legal requirement.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risk assessments aimed to keep people safe while supporting their independence.
“All people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staffing was adjusted around people's activities, work and time spent away from the home.
“There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen speaking calmly and respectfully. People were given choices and were supported to keep their dignity, privacy and independence.
“Throughout the inspection we saw staff were kind and caring towards people they cared for.” from the report
Personalised support
People were supported to follow their interests, take part in community activities and work towards more independent living where this was their goal.
“People received individual, responsive, care and support that was in line with their preferences which had a positive outcome for people who used the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks while still supporting their independence?
- 02How will you manage my relative's money, and what written agreement will be put in place?
- 03How will you make sure medicines are given at the right time and reviewed when needed?
- 04How will you support my relative's preferred activities, community work, family relationships and plans for greater independence?
- 05Who will lead the home and respond to concerns when the registered manager is not available?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, carried out to check improvements after the previous inspection's legal breach. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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 Constable House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 February 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 Worcestershire
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 £980 to £1,260 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.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.