CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Handsworth
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, risk management, staffing, medicines and infection control arrangements. Equipment and building safety checks were up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support. People received personalised assessments, good dietary support and care in line with mental capacity requirements.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Staff knew people well and treated them with exceptional kindness, dignity and respect. Equality, diversity and people's personal histories were central to care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences, histories and interests. Activities were varied and meaningful, and the home supported people's end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open and effective leadership, regular audits and a strong culture of learning. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Handsworth was rated Good overall, with Outstanding care; inspectors found kind, personalised support and effective management.
This was a planned follow-up inspection on 21 and 22 February 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked records about care quality, safety and the building.
The home was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Caring was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines systems, personalised care plans, meaningful activities, good food choices and strong involvement from families.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement. The report says Safe, Effective and Well-led improved to Good, while Caring improved from Good to Outstanding. The overall rating was therefore Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives gave very positive feedback about the staff. Inspectors saw that staff knew people well and supported them patiently and respectfully.
“People living at the home spoke with great fondness and affection about the staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's life histories, preferences, communication needs and important relationships. Families were involved in developing support.
“Care and support planning was truly personalised that not only took account of medical or support needs, but who the person was as an individual.” from the report
Meaningful activities
The home used people's hobbies, interests and past experiences to plan activities. Inspectors saw examples that brought people enjoyment and supported their wellbeing.
“This helped the activities coordinator develop a varied and engaging activities programme that took account of people's physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing.” from the report
Good food and choice
Food was home cooked and people had varied choices. The home also provided snacks, drinks and support for people with additional dietary needs.
“Food was home cooked and well-presented and people were offered choice from a varied menu.” from the report
Effective leadership
Inspectors found managers and staff committed to improvement, with audits, feedback systems and a strong culture of openness.
“The management team was highly effective and led by example.” from the report
Some champion roles still developing
minorThe home had introduced staff champion roles for areas such as medicines, safeguarding and infection control. Inspectors said some roles were less established than others, although development plans were in place.
“Some Champion roles were better established than others” from the report
Refurbishment was planned
minorThe environment was described as traditional, although homely and welcoming. A refurbishment programme was about to begin, so families may wish to check its progress and how people were consulted.
“We were told the provider was about to embark on a refurbishment programme across the home which would deliver improvements to the overall environment.” from the report
- 01What refurbishment work has been completed since the inspection, and how were residents involved in decisions about it?
- 02How have the staff champion roles that were less established at the inspection been developed?
- 03Who will be responsible for the home if the registered manager remains away, and what support will they receive?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in creating and reviewing their personalised care plan?
- 05What activities are available that match my relative's interests, history and communication needs?
This was a planned follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, including the care provided and the premises; the report says the overall rating had improved from Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 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.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but gaps in risk records, dietary instructions and oversight created safety concerns.
The inspection took place on 12 and 13 December 2017. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, accident records and quality checks.
The home was caring and responsive. People were treated with warmth, respect and dignity. Care plans included people's histories, interests and needs. Activities and healthcare support were available, and complaints were managed appropriately.
However, the home was not consistently safe, effective or well-led. Risk assessments did not always give staff enough information to support people safely. Special dietary needs were not clearly communicated, and consent was not always properly recorded. The home's checks had not identified these problems.
The overall rating of Requires Improvement means the home was not failing in every area, but inspectors found important improvements were needed. Two legal regulations were breached.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw warm, friendly interactions and respectful support with personal care.
“Throughout our inspection, we saw staff interaction with people was warm and friendly.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included personal histories, preferences, interests, communication needs and religious practices. This helped staff understand people as individuals.
“Support plans we reviewed were detailed and considered people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs” from the report
Activities and community links
The home arranged activities, outings and opportunities to attend events in the local community. People were supported to choose activities they enjoyed.
“We found the service helped to support people's wellbeing by providing meaningful activities and accommodating people's access to the community.” from the report
Healthcare support
People could access GPs, opticians and podiatrists. A GP held a weekly surgery at the home, while people could still use their own GP if they wished.
“We were satisfied there were adequate systems in place to help ensure people's healthcare needs were proactively met.” from the report
Medicines management
The medicines records reviewed were completed appropriately. Staff were trained and had their competence checked, and medicines were stored securely.
“This meant people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Dietary instructions were unclear
seriousStaff received contradictory information about how much thickener to use in one person's drink. Special diets and food textures were not communicated clearly enough.
“This meant people were at risk because staff were unaware of their specific requirements.” from the report
Consent records were not consistent
needs fixingOne person who was assessed as lacking capacity had signed care documents, with no evidence of an authorised representative. The Mental Capacity Act was not applied consistently.
“However requirements of the MCA were not applied consistently.” from the report
Checks missed important problems
needs fixingThe home's quality checks did not identify the gaps in risk assessments, consent records and dietary communication found during the inspection.
“There were quality assurance processes in place but these had not effectively identified concerns found at this inspection.” from the report
Refurbishment had not started
minorThe building needed refurbishment. Inspectors were told this had been prioritised, but the manager could not say when the work would begin.
“However the registered manager could not tell us when this work would start.” from the report
- 01How are choking and falls risks now recorded so that agency and new staff have clear instructions?
- 02How do you make sure every member of staff knows each person's required food texture and the correct amount of thickener?
- 03How do you check that consent and Mental Capacity Act decisions are recorded correctly for each person?
- 04What action has been taken in response to the two breached regulations, and what evidence can you show us?
- 05Has the refurbishment started, and what is the current timetable for the work?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, including care, records, staffing, medicines, the environment and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2018 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 Handsworth
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 2010.
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 Trafford
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 91 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.