CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Francis House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough suitably trained staff, medicines were managed safely, and infection prevention measures were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff received specialist training. People were supported with food, health appointments, oral care and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and knew people's preferences well. People were involved in decisions and encouraged to develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. People could choose how to spend their time, join activities and maintain relationships with family and the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a caring culture, supportive management and regular checks on quality and medicines. The manager acted immediately when inspectors identified extra information needed in a risk assessment.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Francis House is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some planning and accessibility work still in progress.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 and 10 February 2022. One inspector spoke with seven people, nine staff members, two relatives and two health professionals. Records about care, safety and how the home was managed were also checked.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were supported by staff who knew them well. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control and suitable support with health care.
People were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities and community life. The home did not fully meet current guidance about small, ordinary homes being part of the local community, but inspectors found it was close to local amenities and people regularly used local facilities.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service. The report says some extra information was added to a risk assessment during the inspection, and the manager was reviewing safeguards for one person whose circumstances had changed.
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people's needs, interests and preferences. People and relatives described the care as kind and caring.
“People were supported by a caring and kind staff.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough trained staff to meet people's needs and support activities outside the home. Medicines were administered and stored safely.
“There were enough staff to support people in the home, and to take part in things they like to do.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make decisions, help with household tasks and build their independence. Their care plans focused on their strengths and goals.
“People were supported and encouraged to become more independent, where possible.” from the report
Community involvement
People regularly used local facilities and took part in volunteering, trips, clubs and community activities.
“People were encouraged to engage in a meaningful way in the local community.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and provider carried out checks and audits and followed up actions. Staff also received competency checks and support.
“Regular checks and audits were carried out by the registered manager and provider in order to oversee the quality of the service.” from the report
Current home design guidance
minorThe home did not fully meet current guidance about small, ordinary homes forming part of a local community. Inspectors noted its close location to local amenities and people's regular community access.
“Francis House does not fully meet the current guidance on small, ordinary homes forming part of a local community.” from the report
Some risk information needed adding
needs fixingInspectors found that one person's risk assessment needed more information. The manager completed this during the inspection.
“Some additional information was needed to a person's risk assessment and this was completed by the registered manager during the inspection.” from the report
Safeguards under review
needs fixingThe manager was reviewing the safeguards for one person because their circumstances had changed. The report does not say that this review was complete.
“The registered manager was in the process of reviewing the safeguards that were in place for one person as their circumstances had changed.” from the report
- 01What is the current plan and timescale for installing a passenger lift or changing a shower room to a wet room?
- 02How are risk assessments checked and updated when a person's needs or circumstances change?
- 03What safeguards are now in place for the person whose circumstances had changed, and has the review been completed?
- 04How will people continue to access local amenities and community activities if their mobility needs change?
- 05How do you check that staff have understood and can apply their specialist training?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control and the Right support, right care, right culture principles. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 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.
Every inspection of Francis House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 May 2020.
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.