CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Himley Mill Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Medicines, recruitment, safeguarding and infection control were generally managed safely, although some medication errors and incomplete risk information were found and acted on.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Some care plans lacked important information, behaviour records were not always completed and audits did not consistently find shortfalls. The manager was working with staff to improve the service.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care, but care records and quality checks were not always reliable and well-led was Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 15 March 2021. Inspectors looked at infection control, medicines, nursing care needs and how the home was managed. They spoke with three people, 10 staff and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People said they felt safe, staffing levels were sufficient, medicines were generally managed safely and infection control measures were in place. Staff were trained and knew people's needs well.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Some care plans did not give enough information about health conditions, and staff did not always complete behaviour records when needed. Audits were regular but did not consistently identify these problems.
The overall rating stayed Good because the other three areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. The previous overall rating, published in May 2019, was Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and protected from harm. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns.
“People told us they felt safe living at Himley Mill and they felt protected from the risk of harm and abuse.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs, and people were not kept waiting for care.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures for visitors, testing, protective equipment, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Positive relationships
People said staff knew them well, listened to them and provided person-centred care.
“The staff know me well and know what I like, and I can tell them if I am not happy, they all listen.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome records did not identify important health conditions, such as diabetes, or give enough guidance for staff. Inspectors said this increased the risk that people might not receive effective care and treatment.
“Records did not always accurately reflect people's care needs.” from the report
Behaviour records not always completed
needs fixingStaff did not consistently use behaviour charts when needed. This meant inspectors could not always be assured that patterns of behaviour were identified and used to plan effective support.
“Staff did not consistently use Antecedent Behaviour Consequences (ABC) charts where necessary.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingAudits took place, but they did not consistently identify the issues found during the inspection. This weakened the home's ability to spot and correct problems.
“The audit process was not always consistent in highlighting shortfalls.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every care plan includes specific guidance for conditions such as diabetes?
- 02What changes have you made to ensure staff complete ABC charts when they are needed?
- 03How do your audits now identify missing care information and other shortfalls?
- 04What has been done since the inspection to improve the Well-led rating?
- 05How are medication errors reviewed, and how do you make sure staff remain competent to administer medicines?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some unclear and contradictory mental capacity records corrected during the inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 08 May 2019. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records and the home’s quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments, kind interactions and care that reflected people’s individual needs.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. The earlier concerns about safety, effectiveness, caring, responsiveness and leadership had been addressed.
There was still some inconsistency in mental capacity paperwork. Inspectors said records were sometimes unclear or contradictory, but the provider corrected these issues during the inspection and the following day.
Safer risk management
The home had improved how it assessed and managed risks, including choking, falls and transfers with specialist equipment.
“When people had been identified as at risk of choking, a comprehensive risk assessment and care plan were in place.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed positive relationships between staff and people. Privacy, dignity, choice and independence were supported.
“In all of the units, we observed positive interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care planning included people’s communication, cultural and health needs. People were involved in reviews and could choose activities they enjoyed.
“People's communication preferences had been assessed and there were plans to guide staff.” from the report
Improved leadership
Quality checks and improvement plans were being used to identify and address problems. Staff felt supported and able to raise concerns.
“When areas of improvement had been identified, the necessary action had been taken.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingInspectors found that mental capacity paperwork was inconsistent, unclear and sometimes contradictory. The provider corrected the issues during the inspection and the following day.
“We found improvements had been made around the use of the MCA however this was inconsistent and documentation was sometimes unclear and contradictory.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions are clear and consistent?
- 02How will you assess and manage my relative’s specific risks, such as choking, falls or transfers?
- 03How do you make sure staff have completed the training and competency checks needed for my relative’s care?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in care plan reviews and decisions?
- 05What activities and communication support would be available to match my relative’s interests and needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the whole service, covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 May 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 Himley Mill Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 January 2017.
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 Staffordshire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.