CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Flint Green House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed, medicines were generally given as prescribed, and staffing and recruitment checks were considered safe. However, instructions for some medicines to be given when needed were incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed in detail and staff had relevant training. People were supported with physical and mental healthcare, healthier eating and independent living.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, polite and respectful. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence, and involved people in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were reviewed regularly and reflected people's preferences. People had access to activities, community facilities and support to maintain relationships and independence.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff spoke positively about the management. Quality checks and feedback systems were in place, but some policies had not been reviewed by their due date and the medicine guidance issue had not been fully resolved.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, but some medicines guidance and policy reviews needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 December 2019. One inspector spoke with seven people living at the home, one former resident, four staff, the registered manager and three healthcare professionals. Records, medicines, recruitment files and parts of the building were also checked.
Inspectors found people felt safe and were supported by staff who knew their needs. Medicines were generally given correctly, staffing was considered safe, and the home was clean. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, access healthcare and take part in activities.
People described staff as kind, respectful and caring. Care plans were reviewed with people, and complaints could be raised with staff or the manager. The home was rated Good in all five areas and overall. This was the same as the previous rating published in August 2017.
There were some issues to address. Instructions for some medicines to be given when needed were incomplete, some policies were overdue for review, and staff were monitoring concerns about some people smoking substances that were not always solely tobacco.
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were caring and treated them with dignity. Inspectors saw staff listening to people and offering choices.
“People told us staff were caring, kind and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were encouraged to manage daily activities such as shopping, cooking, cleaning and laundry. The home also had a training kitchen and gym area.
“All people were supported to maintain their independence. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff worked with doctors, mental health professionals and other healthcare services. People were supported to attend appointments and had health action plans.
“External healthcare professionals confirmed collaborative working between staff and themselves to ensure people's needs were met and enable positive outcomes for people.” from the report
People involved in care
People were included in assessments, care reviews and decisions about their support. Their preferences and goals were recorded.
“A person told us, "My records are updated nearly every month. I am involved in the updates.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was visibly clean and tidy. Cleaning routines and infection control equipment were in place.
“We observed the premises were clean and tidy. We were provided with documentary evidence to confirm cleaning routines were followed to maintain the premises.” from the report
Incomplete medicines guidance
needs fixingInstructions were missing for one person's medicine to be given when needed, including what staff should try before giving it. A second person had no completed protocol for these medicines.
“However, for one person there were no instructions to detail what actions should be taken before medicine was offered or administered.” from the report
Policies overdue for review
minorSome provider policies and procedures had not been reviewed by the date set by the provider. The manager said this would be raised with the provider.
“We also found that some of the providers policies and procedures had not been reviewed by the date the provider had set.” from the report
Smoking substances
needs fixingStaff were concerned that some people smoked substances that were not always solely tobacco. The home was monitoring the issue and considering how to manage it, including the possible effect on people who did not smoke.
“The staff were concerned of possible impacts on non-smokers such as; potential behaviour of others, the odour of the substance, and the vulnerability of people who wished to abstain.” from the report
- 01Have the missing protocols for medicines given when needed now been completed, and how are staff checked to make sure they follow them?
- 02Which policies were overdue for review, and have they now been updated?
- 03How is the home managing smoking substances that are not always solely tobacco?
- 04What steps are being taken to protect people who do not smoke from odour, behaviour or pressure to smoke?
- 05How are people involved in care reviews and in decisions about their independence goals?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, support, premises and management, covering all five rating areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 2020 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised support, with one complaint still being dealt with.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with seven people, two relatives, four health professionals and several staff. They also checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home supported up to 15 adults with mental health needs, with nine people living there at the time. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by suitable staff and given their medicines safely. Staff helped people develop cooking, housekeeping and other skills for greater independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection on 12 March 2015, so the overall rating remained Good.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood abuse risks and knew what to do if they had concerns.
“People who used the service confirmed they felt safe with the staff that supported them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind, caring and friendly. Inspectors saw staff speaking to people respectfully and taking time to build trust.
“Staff were pleasant and spoke to people in a kind manner demonstrating that people were treated with kindness.” from the report
Good oversight
The home had quality checks and action plans. Inspectors found the management team open and cooperative.
“Quality audits were carried out around key aspects of the service and we saw evidence that action plans were put in place to remedy any concerns raised.” from the report
Complaint still open
minorOne complaint was being dealt with, but its outcome had not been finalised when inspectors visited. Families may want to ask how complaints are completed and reported back.
“We saw the registered manager was in the process of dealing with the complaint and at the time of this site visit the outcome had not been finalised.” from the report
- 01How do you support people who have community treatment orders or other restrictions under the Mental Health Act?
- 02How has the recent change of ownership affected the home's administration, staffing and day-to-day support?
- 03How are self-administered medicines checked, and how often are those checks reviewed?
- 04How do you record progress towards each person's goals for independence and moving to their own accommodation?
- 05How are complaints investigated, closed and explained to the person and their family?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, and the home remained Good in every area; the previous inspection was on 12 March 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 August 2017 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 Flint Green House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 April 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.