CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elm Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, infection control arrangements were in place and inspectors found enough staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had effective checks on care plans and medicines, submitted required notifications and supported an open culture where people and relatives could raise concerns.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe, supported by enough staff and cared for by a well-led home.
This was a focused inspection on 18 and 21 May 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about incidents and medicines. They spoke with two people, two relatives and four staff members, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, training and safety checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff knew how to support people safely, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were in place. They also found enough staff and safe recruitment checks.
The management team had systems to check care plans and medicines, respond to incidents and learn from mistakes. People, relatives and staff said managers were approachable. The overall rating stayed Good, with the other three question ratings carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection because they were not inspected this time.
Risk management
Risks linked to people's care, home environment and time in the community had been assessed. Staff knew how to reduce the risk of harm.
“The provider had assessed the risks to people associated with their care and support.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. The home had arrangements to respond to errors and learn from them.
“People's medicines continued to be managed safely.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely and recruitment checks included DBS checks.
“People were supported by enough staff who were available to safely support them.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, supported testing and followed infection prevention arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Approachable management
People, relatives and staff said the management team was approachable and supportive. Relatives felt able to raise concerns or opinions.
“People, relatives and staff members said the management team was approachable and they felt supported by them.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Has the newly appointed manager completed the CQC registration process?
- 02How are medicines checked now, and what happens if a medicines error occurs?
- 03How are incidents reviewed and recorded so that lessons are acted on?
- 04How are care plans and risk assessments checked to make sure they still reflect each person's needs?
- 05How are people supported to make decisions and stay connected with local community facilities?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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, July 2019
Elm Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some paperwork and reporting improvements needed.
This was the home's first CQC inspection, carried out on 25 June 2019 by one inspector. The inspector spoke with the one person living there, four staff members, a social care professional and an advocate. They also checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that the person felt safe, received medicines as prescribed and had detailed risk assessments. Staff were described as kind, skilled and familiar with the person's needs.
Care was tailored to the person's choices, communication needs and routines. Staff supported independence, activities, healthcare access and relationships. The home had systems to monitor quality, but inspectors found that one mental capacity assessment was too general and one incident notification was delayed.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew the person well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“Staff respected the person's need for routine and consistency and as far as possible supported them to maintain this.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was tailored to the person's needs, preferences, communication style and possible anxiety triggers.
“The person was supported in a personalised way which was tailored specifically to their needs.” from the report
Building independence
The person was supported to cook, do their laundry, try new activities and become more independent.
“The person's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Positive progress
A social care professional told inspectors that the person had made good progress, including greater involvement in the community.
“[Person] has made good progress over the last 12 months. More progress than expected.” from the report
Mental capacity paperwork
needs fixingThe mental capacity assessment was generic rather than specific to an individual decision, which did not meet the approach required by the Mental Capacity Act. The manager said new assessments would be completed.
“We saw a mental capacity assessment was completed, however this was a generic capacity assessment rather than decision specific as required by the MCA.” from the report
Late incident notification
needs fixingThe home had not notified the CQC promptly about one incident. The manager took action and sent the notification once the issue was identified.
“However, during the inspection, we identified one incident we should have been notified of.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure mental capacity assessments are specific to each decision?
- 02What happened with the incident that was reported late, and what has changed to prevent a repeat?
- 03How will you continue to support the person's independence and community involvement?
- 04How do you identify and respond to situations or places that may cause the person anxiety?
- 05How often are medicine records, stock balances and care plans checked?
This was the home's first scheduled inspection and covered all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 July 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 Elm Road
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 June 2018.
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.