CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elliott House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some risks to people had not been identified or managed, including unsafe equipment use, environmental hazards and incomplete safety records. Staff were available and medicines were generally managed in line with good practice.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff had training and supervision, and people received healthcare support. However, moving and handling practice was not always safe, mealtimes could be hectic, and some DoLS renewals had been delayed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors observed kind and respectful staff, and people and relatives gave positive feedback.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report records positive feedback about care and activities, but does not give a new rating for Responsive.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management was open and acted quickly when concerns were raised. However, audits and governance systems had failed to identify some safety, environmental and record-keeping problems.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but risks, records and quality checks were not always managed safely.
Inspectors visited without notice on 13 and 14 June 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was caring and had enough staff on the inspection days. Medicines were generally managed safely, people received healthcare support, and people and relatives gave positive feedback about staff.
However, some risks had not been identified or dealt with. These included unsafe moving and handling, environmental hazards, incomplete care and risk records, cleaning problems and delayed renewals of some legal safeguards. The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well-led.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 29 November 2019. The Caring and Responsive questions were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff being kind and caring. People and relatives were positive about the support and management.
“Staff were observed being kind and caring and spoke about people in a very respectful way.” from the report
Staff availability
Staff were available on the inspection days to respond to people's needs. Recruitment checks were in place.
“On the day of our inspection there were enough staff available to maintain people's safety and respond to their requests for support.” from the report
Medicine support
Medicines were stored, managed and administered in line with good practice overall. Staff had medicine training and competency checks.
“Staff completed medicine management training and competency checks were completed.” from the report
Positive involvement
People and relatives were asked for their views. Surveys showed high satisfaction, and people took part in activities.
“The annual residents and relatives' surveys showed a very high level of satisfaction in relation to all aspects of the service provided.” from the report
Unmanaged safety risks
seriousSome care records and risk assessments did not contain enough up-to-date information. Inspectors also found environmental hazards, including a hot urn left near people and damaged furniture.
“Some environmental risks to people had not been addressed.” from the report
Moving and handling
seriousSome staff did not always position equipment correctly when helping people use walking aids. Further training and competency checks were planned.
“We observed some staff supporting people to be assisted from sitting to use walking aids and this was not always completed competently.” from the report
Delayed legal safeguards
seriousSome DoLS authorisations had expired without timely renewal applications. New applications were made after inspectors raised the issue.
“Some people had had their DoLS authorisation granted but this had now expired, and a new application had not been made.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits and governance systems did not identify several known risks. This meant managers did not have reliable oversight of safety and care records.
“The systems had failed to identify some of the concerns we found during the inspection.” from the report
Hectic mealtimes
minorInspectors found lunch was hectic at times. The home had identified this and had an improvement plan, including plans to appoint a mealtime hostess.
“We observed a lunch time meal and we saw at times it was hectic.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans and risk assessments been updated, especially for wheelchair transfers and moving and handling?
- 02What checks now make sure environmental hazards, damaged furniture and cleaning problems are found quickly?
- 03How are DoLS applications and renewals tracked so that authorisations do not expire without action?
- 04What extra training and competency checks have staff completed for moving and handling and infection prevention?
- 05What has changed at mealtimes, and how do you check that people receive calm and timely support to eat and drink?
This was an unannounced inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in the overall calculation. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 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, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some records and monitoring needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 25 June and 2 July 2019. The inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine support, suitable training, kind care, personalised support and activities that people enjoyed.
There were some shortfalls. Some risk assessments lacked detail, records of staff competency checks needed more information, and oversight of complaints and some medicine records needed strengthening. The manager acted during the inspection to address these points.
This was the first inspection since the service was registered. CQC said it would continue to monitor information about the home and inspect again under its normal programme, or sooner if concerns arose.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely, with a monthly tool used to assess staffing needs.
“There were sufficient staff available to support people safely.” from the report
Kind care
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported independence and asked for consent before entering bedrooms.
“We saw many kind and caring interactions between people and staff during the inspection visit” from the report
Personalised support
People and relatives helped develop care plans, and care was reviewed when needs changed.
“People and their relatives where appropriate had been involved in developing their plan of care” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had a range of activities linked to their interests, and relatives were welcomed without restrictions on visiting times.
“We saw people become animated and engaged during the activities and were enjoying taking part in these activities.” from the report
Open management
The management team responded openly during the inspection and made improvements when issues were identified.
“The management team acted openly and responsively during the inspection.” from the report
Risk records lacked detail
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not contain enough detail about known risks. The manager took immediate action to improve them.
“Their were risk assessments in place around people's known risks although some of these lacked detail.” from the report
Training records
needs fixingStaff competency checks took place after training, but the records did not always describe these checks in enough detail.
“we found that records of these competencies needed to be made in more detail.” from the report
Medicine monitoring
needs fixingMonitoring had not identified two missing PRN protocols and problems with medicine returns. The manager said changes had been made to monitor these areas more closely.
“Whilst monitoring checks had not highlighted that two PRN protocols had not been completed, and that the returns of medicines needed improving” from the report
Complaint oversight
needs fixingComplaints were investigated and answered, but the home needed better oversight to identify repeated themes or patterns and address them.
“some improvement needed in the oversight of complaints to ensure themes or patterns of complaints could be identified and rectified.” from the report
- 01How are risk assessments now kept detailed and updated when a person's needs change?
- 02How do you record and check staff competency after training?
- 03What changes were made to ensure PRN protocols and medicine returns are complete and properly monitored?
- 04How do you identify repeated themes in complaints and make sure improvements follow?
- 05How will the recent extension and increased registration limit affect staffing and daily care?
This was the first unannounced inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, including the care and premises provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 November 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 Elliott House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 July 2017.
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.