CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Coton House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records still being improved.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 06 December 2018. The inspector reviewed care and medicines records, staff recruitment files, complaints and quality checks. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers.
The home was supporting 29 older people. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine practices, suitable infection control and systems to protect people from abuse and manage risks. People received enough to eat and drink, had access to healthcare and were supported by trained staff.
Inspectors found staff to be kind and respectful. People were involved in choices about their care, supported to stay independent and offered activities suited to their interests. Complaints had been investigated and resolved.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection on 02 June 2016.
Safe staffing
People said staff were available when needed. Inspectors observed that staff responded promptly and were visible in communal areas.
“People who required support were responded to in a timely way and staff were visible throughout communal areas.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, spent time talking with them and responded kindly when people were confused or distressed.
“Where people had become confused or distressed, we saw staff respond to them in a kind and caring way; displaying compassion for the person and staying with them until they felt better.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's preferences, beliefs and communication needs. Activities and support were adapted to individuals.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood people's preferences with regards to their care.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People spoke positively about the food. The home met specific dietary needs and arranged healthcare support when required.
“People spoke positively about the food and drink available to them.” from the report
Complaints handled
The home told people how to complain, and inspectors found that complaints had been investigated, resolved and used to improve the service.
“We looked at records held on complaints and found that where complaints were made, these were investigated and resolved.” from the report
Incomplete best-interests records
needs fixingSome best-interests forms for people who lacked capacity were incomplete. The home had identified this and was moving the records onto a new electronic system.
“We found that some records had not been completed accurately; including best interests forms for people who lack capacity.” from the report
Recording of personal care
needs fixingAn audit showed a pattern suggesting some people had not received personal care, but managers said this was a recording problem during the electronic system change. The home said it would address this.
“The bath and shower audit showed specific trends where people had not received personal care but could not see the action taken.” from the report
- 01Have all incomplete best-interests forms now been completed and checked?
- 02How do you make sure the electronic care planning system records personal care accurately?
- 03How do you act when audits show that people may not have received personal care?
- 04What support is available for someone who needs accessible communication or does not speak English as a first language?
- 05How are people's end-of-life wishes recorded and kept up to date?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; no one was receiving end-of-life care during the visit, so that area was not observed in practice. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 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 Coton House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 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 Wolverhampton
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. 89 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“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.