CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Conway House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors looked only at staffing pressures and infection prevention and control within this question. They were assured that the home was using PPE safely, managing visits, supporting testing and maintaining infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Conway House: inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 25 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures were affecting care.
The inspectors found good practice. Visitors were asked for testing or vaccination evidence, PPE was available, communal areas had extra cleaning, and furniture was arranged to support social distancing.
The home kept in touch with families in several ways, including visits, phone calls and window visits. Plans were in place for people who needed to self-isolate, and staff continued to support access to healthcare.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not provide a new overall quality rating, or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Infection control
The home had extra cleaning of frequently touched areas and enough PPE available at the points where it was needed.
“There was additional cleaning of touch points in communal areas to mitigate the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home supported contact with families through several types of visit and communication. It also provided PPE where needed.
“The service kept in contact with family members through essential visits, social media, phone calls, window visits and an outdoor building” from the report
Support during isolation
Plans were in place for people who needed to self-isolate, with extra support for people who might find this difficult.
“For those people who may struggle with isolation additional support was provided.” from the report
Healthcare access
Staff continued to help people use healthcare services, including making arrangements for hospital visits and safe returns to the home.
“Staff continued to support people to access healthcare services.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are any current staffing pressures affecting the people living in the home?
- 02How do you check testing and vaccination requirements for staff, professionals and family visitors?
- 03What support would be provided if my relative needed to self-isolate?
- 04What visiting options are available now, including outdoor or window visits?
- 05How would you support my relative if they needed to go to hospital and then return to the home?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it did not rate the service overall or assess all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2022 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, March 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in record keeping and service management, which was rated Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 12 February 2019. Inspectors reviewed information about the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, recruitment files, policies and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly, supported by enough staff and cared for in line with their needs. Staff worked with health professionals and supported people to make choices.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Some care records were not kept up to date, staff supervision was inconsistent and quality checks did not always identify or resolve problems. The overall rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. No enforcement action was required.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs without unnecessary waiting. Recruitment checks had also been completed before staff started work.
“We saw there were enough staff to meet people's individual needs, without keeping people waiting.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff showed interest in people and supported their privacy, independence and personal choices.
“We saw staff were kind and respectful to people and we observed some thoughtful and caring acts by staff during our inspection.” from the report
Good knowledge of people
Although some records were incomplete or out of date, staff understood people's current needs, preferences and changes in care.
“Whilst care records were not always accurately documented, staff were knowledgeable about people, their needs and preferences and we saw they had a good relationship with the people.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingThe home's monitoring systems did not always find or follow up problems. For example, a mattress needing attention had been identified, but management did not know whether action had been taken.
“The service had a range of quality monitoring arrangements in place, although we found these were not always effective.” from the report
Care records not always updated
needs fixingSome records did not reflect recent changes in people's needs or care. Staff knew what to do, but relying on staff knowledge creates a risk that information may not be consistent.
“Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs however we found inconsistencies in some people's records where they had not been updated based on recent changes to their needs” from the report
Inconsistent staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff did not receive regular, planned supervision. The report also identified areas where training updates were needed.
“Supervision with staff was not always formalised though and one member of staff told us, "I've had one in four years, but loads of informal, well supported and support as need rather than planned".” from the report
Outstanding building and furniture checks
needs fixingSome environmental health actions were still outstanding. Inspectors also found damaged furniture and a rusty table that were not easy to clean.
“We noted some issues not identified by the provider, for example in the lounge there was a large leatherette easy chair which had foam stuffing exposed” from the report
- 01How have you made sure care records are updated promptly when a person's needs or equipment change?
- 02How often does each member of staff now receive formal supervision, and how is this recorded?
- 03Which staff training updates identified in the report have been completed, including training about feeding tubes and diabetes?
- 04Have the environmental health actions, electrical work and asbestos review been completed?
- 05How do your quality checks make sure problems such as damaged furniture and mattresses are acted on and followed up?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the ratings given were current rather than carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 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.
Every inspection of Conway House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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.