CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hilton Rose Retirement Home Ltd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding and people's risks. Medicines were usually administered safely, infection control procedures were followed, and incidents were reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality checks, a person-centred culture and good involvement of people, relatives and staff.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well supported, although some medicines were unavailable on the inspection day.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 December 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with a person living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that staff understood risks, medicines were usually given safely, infection control procedures were followed and there were systems to learn from incidents. They also found person-centred care, activities and regular involvement of people and relatives.
Some medicines were unavailable for two people on the inspection day because of a prescribing and dispensing error. The provider acted quickly, sought medical advice and no one came to harm. The inspection did not assess Effective, Caring or Responsive, so those ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Managing risks
Risks were assessed and care plans gave staff clear guidance about how to reduce them. Staff understood people's individual risks.
“Risks were assessed, and plans were put in place to mitigate the risks.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff had medicine training and were observed giving medicines as prescribed. Records and storage checks were accurate.
“Medicines were administered in line with the providers policy.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans recorded people's preferences and wishes. Staff knew these plans and supported people with activities and time outside the home.
“Care plans were person centred and gave staff details about people's preferences and wishes relating to their care needs.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used regular audits and acted on issues identified through external checks, including fire safety and infection control.
“The provider had quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
Medicine availability
needs fixingSome medicines were unavailable for two people on the inspection day because of an error in prescribing and dispensing. The provider took action and no one came to harm.
“Some medicines were not available to 2 people on the day of the inspection.” from the report
Waiting for help
minorOne person said staff were busy and they sometimes had to wait for support. Inspectors observed that people's needs were met promptly and said this did not affect their care.
“Staff are always busy, I sometimes have to wait for help.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent medicines being unavailable because of prescribing or dispensing errors?
- 02How do you make sure people receive prompt help when staff are busy?
- 03How are people's risks and care plans reviewed after a fall or other incident?
- 04How do residents and relatives influence activities and changes in the home?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected this time?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection on 19 March 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 January 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and COVID-19 measures were being managed safely.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 14 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, and on whether staffing pressures were affecting care.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, supported testing, managed visitors and admissions, and kept cleaning and infection control policies up to date. Staff were observed wearing PPE correctly.
The home had temporarily closed to visitors after everyone living there tested positive for COVID-19. It used separate staff groups, cutlery and laundry for people who tested positive, and created an extra lounge to support social distancing.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit checked specific infection control arrangements, rather than giving a full quality rating for the home.
PPE use
Staff had received PPE training and inspectors saw them wearing PPE in line with government guidance.
“Staff had received appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) training and were observed wearing PPE in line with current government guidance.” from the report
Family contact
During the outbreak, people were supported to stay in touch with family and friends through window visits, phone calls and video calls.
“During the outbreak of COVID-19 people were supported to maintain contact with family and friends through window visits, phone and video calls.” from the report
Cleaning
The home had detailed cleaning arrangements, including frequent cleaning of surfaces and regular deep cleaning.
“The registered manager had clear cleaning schedules with hourly touchpoint cleaning and regular deep cleaning of all areas.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing infection outbreaks and preventing infections from spreading?
- 02Are staff still receiving PPE training and using PPE in the same way inspectors observed?
- 03How do you currently support visits from family and friends during an outbreak or other infection risk?
- 04What measures are in place now to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 05Are the hourly touchpoint cleaning and regular deep cleaning arrangements still in place?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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 Hilton Rose Retirement Home Ltd
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Hilton Rose Retirement Home Ltd →
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Hilton Rose Retirement Home Ltd →
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 August 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.