CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Homestead Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home had procedures to prevent infections and was using testing, PPE, social distancing and cleaning measures. They also found that the home could manage an infection outbreak effectively.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 February 2021. Inspectors looked at how the home prevented and controlled infections during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found systems for visiting, testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing, cleaning and managing possible outbreaks. They were assured that the home had suitable infection control procedures.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not provide an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Safer visiting
A booking system and outside visiting pod helped relatives visit without walking through the home. Extra precautions were used when people were unwell.
“A pre-booked visiting system was in place and a visiting pod was used for relative visits.” from the report
Testing and PPE
Staff, residents and visitors had access to COVID-19 testing, and people who tested positive were expected to self-isolate in line with guidance.
“COVID-19 test kits were plentiful. Staff were required to take a COVID-19 test three times a week and people every 28 days.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the premises adequately clean, with suitable cleaning products and cleaning schedules being followed.
“The premises were adequately clean. Appropriate cleaning products were used and staff followed the providers cleaning schedules.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting arrangements changed since the inspection on 16 February 2021?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested now, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 03How do you manage new admissions to reduce the risk of infection entering the home?
- 04What arrangements are in place if there is an infection outbreak?
- 05How do you check that cleaning schedules and PPE procedures are followed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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, December 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home Requires Improvement for being well-led.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 November 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated with respect, received their medicines, had access to healthcare and were offered activities, food choices and regular drinks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Inspectors found that some care records did not fully reflect people's current needs. They also said management audits and checks were not always strong enough to find and fix problems promptly.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The two earlier breaches had been addressed, and the home was no longer in breach, although further improvements were still needed.
People kept safe
Staff understood people's risks and responded to requests for help promptly. Inspectors found effective safeguarding systems and suitable medicine arrangements.
“People were supported by staff who were aware of the risks to them on a daily basis.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity, privacy and respect, while being encouraged to remain independent.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Improved activities
People, relatives and staff said activities had improved. Inspectors saw people taking part in exercise and a ball game, and noted other social and faith activities.
“The activities are better than before. [Person's name] likes activities and joins in, there's always plenty on.” from the report
Care records did not always match needs
needs fixingInformation about falls and weight loss was up to date in some management records but was not always included in individual care plans. This could make it harder to ensure care instructions consistently reflect current needs.
“we found in some cases this was not reflected in the person's individual care plan.” from the report
Management checks were not robust enough
needs fixingAudits were in place but did not always identify problems or ensure action was taken promptly. This included care plan and recruitment checks.
“some needed to be more robust to ensure areas for improvement were consistently identified and actions taken in a timely way.” from the report
Lunchtime experience
minorSome people became anxious while waiting for lunch, which affected others. The manager accepted that this part of the service needed improvement.
“We observed some people became anxious and called out when they were seated and awaiting lunch.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorSome applicant employment gaps were not fully addressed in recruitment records. Inspectors said this had not been picked up by recruitment audits.
“recruitment records could be strengthened to ensure all gaps in applicant's employment history are addressed.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure care plans reflect current information about falls, weight and other changing needs?
- 02What changes have been made to make lunchtime calmer for people who become anxious while waiting?
- 03How do your audits now check that problems are identified and acted on promptly?
- 04How do you make sure all gaps in applicants' employment histories are checked and recorded?
- 05How are Mental Capacity Act assessments recorded consistently in people's paperwork?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 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 Homestead Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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 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.