CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Highgate Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and risks, medicines and infection control were generally managed safely. However, one alleged abuse incident was not reported as required, self-employed staff checks were incomplete, and two specialist chairs posed an infection risk.
- Effective?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess Caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess Responsive.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive and open culture, clear management support and systems for monitoring quality. Some day-to-day checks were not formally recorded, but a recording system was introduced after the inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Highgate Road rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well supported, but noted gaps in checks on some workers and equipment.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 1 February 2024. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led. They spoke with one person, three relatives and three staff members, and reviewed care records, medicines records, quality checks and two recruitment files.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, safeguarding and infection control were generally managed well. People were supported to make choices and take part in activities they enjoyed.
There were some shortfalls. One alleged abuse incident had not been reported as required. Checks on self-employed staff were not always completed, and two specialist chairs were in poor condition and posed an infection risk. Some day-to-day checks were not formally recorded, although action was taken after the inspection.
Medicines and infection control
Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely and that staff followed infection prevention procedures, including using protective equipment safely.
“We saw that medicines were managed safely. This included the; ordering, storage, administration, recording and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Positive culture
People, relatives and staff described a positive service. The provider had systems for learning from problems and improving care.
“The provider had created a learning culture at the service which improved the care people received.” from the report
Staffing levels
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, with staffing adjusted when people's needs required it. Directly employed staff had been recruited with the required checks.
“People and their relatives told us and we saw there were enough suitably skilled staff to support people in line with their agreed needs.” from the report
Safeguarding report missed
seriousOne alleged abuse incident had not been reported to the local authority or CQC as required. The manager had kept the person safe and showed inspectors that learning had taken place.
“However, we found 1 incident of alleged abuse that had not been reported to the local authority or us as required.” from the report
Checks on self-employed staff
needs fixingThe provider did not always complete checks to make sure self-employed workers were safe to work with people. CQC recommended an effective checking system.
“Where staff were not directly employed by the provider (self employed staff) checks were not always made to ensure these staff were safe to work with people.” from the report
Specialist chairs
needs fixingTwo specialist chairs were in poor condition and posed an infection risk. The manager was taking action when inspectors raised this.
“Two of the specialist chairs used at the service were in a poor condition posing an infection risk.” from the report
Records of daily checks
minorSome day-to-day checks were completed but not formally recorded. The manager introduced a new system after the inspection to record checks and actions taken.
“However, some day-to-day checks completed by the manager were not formally recorded to show they had been completed.” from the report
Community activities
minorPeople took part in activities at home and in the community. However, some staff and one relative felt people could access the community more often.
“Although some staff and a relative felt people could access the community on a more frequent basis.” from the report
- 01What checks are now completed before self-employed staff work at the home, and how are those checks recorded?
- 02What action was taken to replace or repair the two specialist chairs that posed an infection risk?
- 03How do you make sure every safeguarding incident is reported to the local authority and CQC when required?
- 04What do staff handovers cover, and how do you make sure they include enough detail about people's changing needs?
- 05Has the new manager's application to register been completed, and who is legally overseeing the home until then?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2024 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 2018
Highgate Road is rated Good; inspectors found improved, safe and kind care, with transport and legal safeguards still worth checking.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 October 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with staff, a relative and healthcare professionals, and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home supported five people with learning and physical disabilities and complex health needs. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable training, good health support and care that respected people's choices, dignity and communication needs.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection in July 2017 rated the service Requires Improvement, so this report records clear progress.
Enough staff
Staffing arrangements had been reorganised so that one staff member handled cooking and cleaning, giving others more time to support people and take them out.
“We saw that there were sufficient staff to support people's needs.” from the report
Good communication
Staff understood how people communicated without speech and used care information to respond consistently to their wishes.
“Care files contained communication passports which detailed how people used body language to communicate.” from the report
Personalised opportunities
People were supported with activities, holidays, education, community visits and cultural or religious activities that mattered to them.
“People had had the opportunity to go on holidays in recent months and more were planned for later this year.” from the report
Improved leadership
The report says the home had improved its care records, incident reporting and quality checks since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection, we found improvements had been made and the service is now rated as 'good'.” from the report
Limited transport
needs fixingThe home did not have its own transport. People relied on taxis and public transport, and staff were concerned about taxi costs. The provider planned to purchase or share a minibus.
“The home had no transport of its own so people relied on taxis and public transport to get out into the community.” from the report
Safeguards awaiting a decision
needs fixingPrevious legal authorisations for some people had expired. New applications had been submitted, but the home was still waiting for the local authority to respond.
“The registered manager had submitted new applications in all required cases and was awaiting a response from the relevant local authority.” from the report
New dignity role
minorA dignity champion had recently been appointed. Inspectors could not yet judge the effect of this role.
“This was a fairly new development so the impact of this role could not yet be seen at this inspection.” from the report
- 01Has the planned minibus been purchased or shared, and how often can people now get out into the community?
- 02Have the outstanding legal safeguard applications been approved, and are any conditions being followed?
- 03How do you check that the new dignity champion role is improving people's privacy and respect?
- 04How are staffing arrangements kept sufficiently covered when people have appointments, holidays or community activities?
- 05How are families involved when care plans or health needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and both the care and accommodation. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 November 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 Highgate Road
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 May 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 Walsall
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 £1,200 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 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.”
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.