CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Highbury House Mental Health Unit
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found good care, but important notifications to CQC were delayed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 February 2019. Inspectors observed care, spoke with five people, the manager and staff, and checked care, medicines, safeguarding and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were generally supported safely, treated kindly, involved in decisions and helped to follow their interests and routines.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement because Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The provider had not always sent important notifications to CQC promptly, including some safeguarding events and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 24 December 2015.
Kind relationships
People spoke warmly about staff, and inspectors saw strong bonds. Staff offered reassurance and support in ways people preferred.
“People were very positive about the staff who supported them.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff when people wanted assistance. Medicines were given by trained staff, with regular checks.
“There were sufficient staff to care for people at times people wanted.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, needs, interests and communication preferences. People were supported to make choices and become more independent.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Staff skills
Staff received induction and ongoing training that reflected the needs of people living at the home, including mental health training.
“The training staff had undertaken reflected the needs of the people living at the home.” from the report
Important events not always reported
seriousThe home did not notify CQC promptly about all safeguarding events and approved Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations. This was a breach of Regulation 18 and led to a fixed penalty notice.
“The provider had failed to notify the Care Quality Commission of all safeguarding events and Deprivation of Liberty Authorisations that had been approved by the supervisory body.” from the report
Care home size
minorThe home was registered for up to 21 people, which the report said was larger than current best practice guidance. Inspectors said the building design and staff approach reduced the negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
End-of-life plans still being developed
minorPlans setting out people's wishes at the end of their lives were still being developed as electronic care planning was introduced.
“Plans setting out people's wishes at the end of their lives were being further developed, in line with newly introduced electronic care planning, so people's preferences would be met.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure safeguarding events and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations are reported to CQC on time?
- 02What checks now confirm that all required notifications have been submitted?
- 03How are people's end-of-life wishes recorded and kept up to date?
- 04How does the home's size affect people's privacy, independence and access to shared spaces?
- 05How will the new electronic care planning system affect the care and time available to people?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the care home, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 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.
Every inspection of Highbury House Mental Health Unit
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Highbury House Mental Health Unit →
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 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 Dudley
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 £1,230 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.