CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fourways
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Medicines were managed safely, staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors found two mattresses set incorrectly and some fire doors needing further work.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit because no immediate concerns had been identified. The report says ratings from previous comprehensive inspections were used where applicable.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit because no immediate concerns had been identified. Relatives told inspectors that staff were caring, knew people well and provided personalised support.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people's preferences and responded promptly when needs changed. Activities, communication support and complaints handling were also described positively.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Audits and checks had improved and were being used to drive further improvements. Staff and relatives said the management and communication were much better than at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found improved safe, responsive and well-led care, with some fire safety work still to complete.
Inspectors visited on 22 June 2021. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment checks, complaints and quality checks. They also checked infection control arrangements during the pandemic.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found that medicines, risk planning, staffing, safeguarding and infection control had improved since the previous inspection. People were treated with respect and relatives said communication and care were much better.
Some actions were still outstanding. Two specialist mattresses were set incorrectly, although inspectors found no negative impact. Some fire doors needed further work to make them safe, and the provider said this would be completed by 30 June 2021.
Safer medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely, with records showing that staff signed when medicines had been administered.
“Medicines were stored and administered safely and records we checked, showed staff had correctly signed medicines administration records when medicines had been given.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and adapted support to their needs, interests and communication preferences.
“It was clear from our conversations with family members, personalised care was provided by staff who knew their relative well.” from the report
Good communication
Relatives said communication had improved, including during pandemic visiting restrictions. Families could also review daily care through the care record system.
“Relatives we spoke with felt well informed and engaged in how their family members were supported.” from the report
Improved management
The home had strengthened its audits, checks and incident reviews since the previous inspection. Staff and relatives reported that the service had improved.
“At this inspection, we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Fire safety actions
seriousSome fire doors had been identified as needing more work to make them safe. The provider said the work would be completed by 30 June 2021.
“During our visit we identified some fire doors had been identified as requiring additional work to make them safe.” from the report
Mattress checks
needs fixingTwo airflow mattresses were set incorrectly. Inspectors found no negative impact, but the manager said staff would be reminded and checks increased.
“We still found two mattresses set incorrectly. There was no negative impact for these two people.” from the report
- 01Has all the work identified for the fire doors been completed, and how is this checked now?
- 02How often are airflow mattresses checked, and what happens if one is found to be set incorrectly?
- 03How will you tell us promptly if our relative's health or care needs change?
- 04How can our family review the daily care record and raise a complaint if needed?
- 05Which areas of care were not assessed during this inspection, and when will they next be reviewed?
This was a follow-up inspection focused on Safe, Responsive and Well-led care and infection control; other key questions were not inspected during this visit and previous ratings were used where applicable. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 July 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that the home had safe infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 26 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus outbreak response.
There were 42 people living at the home, which can provide care for up to 47 older people. Inspectors found that staff used personal protective equipment, followed social distancing guidance and had access to testing.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were prevented from spreading infection, new admissions were managed safely and the home could prevent or manage outbreaks. Cleaning schedules, PPE storage and the infection control policy were also checked.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a standard rating for each of the five areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
PPE and distancing
Staff were seen following social distancing guidance and using PPE. PPE was stored around the home so staff could reach it easily.
“Staff were observed socially distancing and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with guidance.” from the report
Cleaning checks
The home displayed cleaning schedules and updated them when cleaning had been completed.
“Laminated signs to monitor cleaning schedules were displayed throughout the home and updated when cleaning had taken place.” from the report
Family contact
The home created a garden pod and provided individual Christmas meals so people could meet family more safely.
“The provider had installed a purpose-built garden pod and sourced individual Christmas meals, so people could enjoy the festivities with family safely within the pod.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently prevented from catching or spreading infections?
- 02How do you make sure new residents are admitted safely?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and how are the results managed?
- 04How do you check that cleaning has been completed throughout the home?
- 05How would you manage an infection outbreak if one happened now?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 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.
Every inspection of Fourways
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 January 2011.
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 Warwickshire
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 £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“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.