CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at High Lea House
Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the home performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements, but quality checks needed to improve.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus pandemic. The home was providing personal care to 18 people, although it could support up to 29.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, new admissions and people at higher risk were managed safely. They also found effective use of protective equipment, testing, social distancing, shielding, hygiene and the layout of the building.
The home had created a visiting pod and fitted a hand-washing basin near the entrance. Staff numbers had also been increased to support relatives' contact, testing and vaccinations.
The home was inspected but not rated. Inspectors could not be assured that infection control quality checks always identified and dealt with actions quickly. The manager said extra cleaning schedules and checks would be introduced.
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, admissions, protective equipment, testing and infection outbreaks safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home created a visiting pod so people could see relatives more safely.
“A bedroom had been converted into a visiting pod so people could be visited safely” from the report
Support for wellbeing
People could use outdoor areas safely, and the home supported virtual religious services to meet spiritual needs.
“Staff also supported them to access outdoor areas when they could do this safely to promote their emotional wellbeing.” from the report
Staffing support
Staff numbers had been increased to allow for extra time supporting contact with relatives and for testing and vaccinations.
“Staff numbers had been increased to account for the additional time it took to support people to communicate with their relatives” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingInspectors could not be assured that infection control checks were strong enough to identify and address actions promptly. The manager said additional cleaning schedules and checks would be introduced.
“we could not be assured that IPC related quality checks were sufficient to ensure actions were identified and addressed in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01What additional cleaning schedules and infection control quality checks were introduced after this inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure that problems found in infection control checks are dealt with promptly?
- 03How are visits currently arranged, and is the visiting pod still being used?
- 04How do you support people who need shielding, outdoor time or help to attend religious services virtually?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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, November 2017
High Lea House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 October 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health and care professionals. They also looked at care records, medicines, accidents, staff training and recruitment records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff were trained, medicines were given safely, and people's health and dietary needs were supported.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to take part in activities they enjoyed. The provider used checks and audits to monitor and improve the service.
The home was still rated Good, the same as at the previous inspection.
Managing risks
Risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed, recorded and reviewed. Plans were in place to help keep people safe.
“The risks to people had been assessed, recorded and plans were in place to manage these and keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff treated people warmly and took time to talk with them. They supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“We saw staff greeted people warmly upon seeing them for the first time that day, and took the time to chat with them and ask how they were feeling.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs, life histories and preferences. Staff adapted support to suit each person.
“People had been involved in developing care plans that were individual to them and covered a range of needs.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider carried out checks on areas such as health and safety, infection control and medicines. These checks had led to improvements.
“These quality assurance activities had resulted in improvements in the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's specific risks, including any history of falls or pressure ulcers?
- 02How will my relative be involved in creating and reviewing their care plan?
- 03What activities would be available that match my relative's interests and cultural or religious needs?
- 04How would you support my relative to access medical advice or treatment if their health changed?
- 05How are staffing levels reviewed if people's needs increase?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 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 High Lea House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.