CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Holmpark
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and controlling infection, including through PPE, testing, cleaning and its infection prevention policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Holmpark was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control measures.
This was a targeted inspection on 15 April 2021. It focused on how the home prevented and controlled coronavirus infections, rather than on all aspects of care.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were screened and tested, people and staff were tested regularly, PPE was used safely, and cleaning had increased. They also found that people were supported to keep in touch with family.
The overall service and Safe question were both marked “Inspected but not rated”. This report therefore does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Visitor safety checks
Visitors were screened for symptoms and completed a lateral flow test before visiting.
“Visitors were screened for symptoms of Covid-19 and were required to complete a lateral flow test” from the report
Safe PPE use
Inspectors found enough PPE and saw that staff had training in how to use it.
“Staff received Infection Prevention Control (IPC) training which included donning and doffing of PPE and PPE usage.” from the report
Testing and isolation
People and staff were tested regularly, with people or staff who tested positive required to self-isolate.
“Staff and people were tested regularly in line with government guidance.” from the report
Contact with family
The home supported people to stay in touch with important people through devices and resumed visits in line with guidance.
“People had been supported to maintain contact with people who were important to them.” from the report
Up-to-date policy
The infection prevention and control policy had been reviewed when government guidance changed.
“The provider's IPC policy was up to date and had been reviewed when new government guidance had been issued.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and tested before entering the home?
- 02How often are people and staff currently tested for infections?
- 03How is PPE training kept up to date for staff, including putting it on and taking it off?
- 04How often are cleaning schedules reviewed, and how is cleanliness checked?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last updated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other care questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 May 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, April 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some care records and medicines records needing improvement.
Inspectors visited the home unannounced on 3 April 2019. They spoke with people living there, relatives, visitors and staff. They also checked care plans, medicine records, staff recruitment files, complaints, incidents and safety checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine support, suitable training, clean surroundings and respectful care. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and follow their interests.
Some improvements were still needed. A few refrigerated eye drops had not been dated when opened, and some care records had missing dates, signatures or information that needed updating. The manager acted on these issues during or after the inspection.
The previous overall rating was Good, but Safe had previously been Requires Improvement because of medicines and risk management. Inspectors said these earlier problems had been addressed.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs and support activities. Staff responded to people promptly during the visit.
“There were enough staff to support people when required.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and visitors spoke positively about the staff. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, choices and independence.
“People were treated with respect and spoke highly of the staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home supported people to follow their interests and take part in activities suited to their wishes. Activities included music, games, community visits and research using an iPad.
“People pursued interests and hobbies that were tailored to their individual needs and wishes.” from the report
Good management checks
The home had audits covering care, medicines, incidents and safety. These checks identified areas needing further work and helped the service learn from mistakes.
“A comprehensive system of audit and checks ensured the care provided met people's needs.” from the report
Earlier safety issues addressed
The report says the medicines and risk-management problems identified at the previous inspection had been dealt with.
“At this inspection we found the previous issues in relation to medicines and risk management had been addressed.” from the report
Opened eye drops
needs fixingSome refrigerated eye drops had not been dated when opened. This created a risk that they could be used after their recommended period, although the management team acted immediately.
“Some refrigerated eye drops were not dated on opening which meant there was a risk they could be used when out of date, and their effectiveness reduced.” from the report
Care records not fully complete
needs fixingSome records had missing dates and signatures, or information that needed updating. The manager said further work was under way.
“Care records contained detailed information about people that was individualised. However, there were some gaps in relation to dates and signatures and some information required updating.” from the report
Weight-loss support not clearly recorded
needs fixingThe correct support was being given to one person who had lost weight, but this was not clearly set out in their care records.
“One person had lost weight recently and whilst the correct action was being taken to support them, this was unclear in their care records.” from the report
End of life information
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. Some wishes were recorded, but the home was working with GPs to add more information about people's preferences.
“The registered manager told us work was being done with GP's to include further information so they could be assured people received the care they wanted in their final days.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure refrigerated eye drops are dated when opened and used within the correct period?
- 02What checks make sure every care record has current dates, signatures and information?
- 03How do you record and review support for anyone who is losing weight?
- 04How do you record each person's wishes and preferences for end of life care?
- 05What further work has been completed on the home and garden since this inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the care home. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 April 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 Holmpark
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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 Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“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.