CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Drake Court Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risks linked to medical conditions, mental health and skin integrity were not always assessed or clearly explained to staff. Medicine records and infection control also had gaps, although medicines checked had been given as prescribed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. A previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. A previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People's needs were not always fully met because some care information and equipment were missing. Activities, dementia engagement and recording of end of life wishes also needed improvement.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home's audits and monitoring systems did not reliably identify problems with care records, medicines, recruitment, cleaning or equipment. The provider remained in breach of the good governance regulation.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Drake Court Residential Home rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found ongoing risks, weak monitoring and care that was not always responsive.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 20 October and 3 November 2021, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine and management records.
The home had made some improvements, including in medicine administration, moving people safely and checking accidents. However, risks were still not assessed or managed consistently. Some people did not receive pressure relief as recorded, and records for some medicines and care needs were incomplete.
Staff met people's basic needs, but inspectors saw them mainly working through tasks and having little time to spend with people. Activities, equipment, care records and end of life wishes also needed improvement. The home remained in breach of regulations about safe care and good governance.
Medicine administration
The medicines checked had been given as prescribed, and stock balances matched the records.
“Medicines records confirmed medication had been administered as prescribed.” from the report
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and relatives did not raise safety concerns.
“People told us they felt safe when supported by staff.” from the report
Responding to illness
Staff acted when a person became unwell and sought medical help.
“We observed staff being responsive when a person was unwell during our inspection and action was taken to seek medical intervention for the person.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home used a visiting pod and other methods to help people keep in touch with relatives during the pandemic.
“Relatives told us efforts were made to enable them to maintain contact with their loved ones when visits could not take place, using video calls, telephone calls and window visits.” from the report
Working with health professionals
A visiting healthcare professional said staff responded to recommendations and contacted them when needed.
“They work well with us.” from the report
Risks were not managed consistently
seriousSome risks were not assessed properly or explained clearly to staff. Pressure relief was not always provided as recorded, creating a potential risk of harm.
“There was a failure to assess risks to people and provide staff with guidance and direction on how to mitigate those risks.” from the report
Incomplete medicine records
seriousFor one person, records did not show where skin patches had been applied. The rationale and checks for some medicines used for distressed behaviour were also not recorded.
“For one person there were no records in place to indicate the location each patch had been applied.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
seriousAudits did not identify concerns with medicines, care records, recruitment, cleaning and equipment. The provider remained in breach of the good governance regulation.
“Although audits were completed in several areas these were still not robust enough to identity the concerns we found during this inspection.” from the report
Staff were often busy
needs fixingFeedback about staffing levels was mixed. On one inspection day, personal care and morning medicines were still being provided at lunchtime, and staff were mainly task-focused.
“On the first day of our inspection site visit, we observed people's needs were not met in a timely manner.” from the report
Activities and equipment
needs fixingSome people lacked suitable equipment, and people living with dementia were often left without meaningful engagement. Activities were planned but did not always take place.
“We also observed most of the people that lived with dementia sitting with no meaningful engagement or objects to occupy their minds such as therapy dolls or rummage boxes.” from the report
Infection control gaps
needs fixingVisitor temperature checks, mask use, distancing and cleaning were not always consistent. Some equipment and furniture were observed to be soiled.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01How are risks such as sore skin, medical conditions and mental health needs assessed and explained to staff now?
- 02How do you record the application sites for skin patches and check medicines used for distressed behaviour?
- 03What has changed to make sure audits identify gaps in care records, recruitment files, cleaning and equipment?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff at busy times and that care is not delayed until lunchtime?
- 05What activities and meaningful engagement are now available, especially for people living with dementia?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from previous comprehensive inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 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, February 2021
Drake Court Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 15 January 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control because the home had experienced coronavirus outbreaks.
Inspectors found that visitors had temperature checks, hand sanitiser and access to protective equipment. People who tested positive for COVID-19 self-isolated, and staff were supported to keep apart during breaks and handovers.
Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleanliness, outbreak management and the infection control policy. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a new overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors had temperature checks, were asked to clean their hands and could use protective equipment.
“Visitors had their temperatures taken prior to entering the home and were required to sanitise their hands.” from the report
Family contact
While visits were restricted, people could keep in touch with relatives by video and telephone. Staff also kept relatives informed about their family member's wellbeing.
“Whilst visiting had been restricted the provider had ensured people continued to have contact with their family members through video and telephone calls.” from the report
Outbreak arrangements
People who tested positive for COVID-19 self-isolated in line with guidance. Inspectors were also assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed effectively.
“People who had tested positive for Covid-19 self-isolated in line with current guidance.” from the report
Staff support
The management team supported staff who were anxious during this period by checking on their wellbeing regularly.
“Staff were supported by the management team through periods of anxiety with regular phone calls to check on their wellbeing.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the home's current overall CQC rating, as this inspection was not rated?
- 02How have visiting arrangements changed since the visiting pod was being constructed?
- 03What infection prevention and control measures are currently used for visitors, residents and staff?
- 04How does the home manage new admissions and residents who test positive for COVID-19 or another infection?
- 05How are relatives kept informed about a resident's wellbeing during any outbreak or visiting restriction?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the other quality questions were not assessed and no overall rating was given. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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.
Every inspection of Drake Court Residential Home
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- December 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Drake Court Residential Home →
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Drake Court Residential Home →
- April 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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 Walsall
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 £1,200 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.”
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.