CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Homewood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, medicines and infection control were generally safe, although some risk plan details and medicine storage records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed in this inspection, so no current rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed in this inspection, so no current rating was given. Inspectors did report that people and relatives described staff as kind and friendly.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed in this inspection, so no current rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective audits, action plans and provider oversight. People, relatives and staff said the home was well-led and that the manager was approachable.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and improved leadership, with some records and safety details needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 June 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care records, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good, and inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were generally managed safely, staffing levels were enough and infection control was effective. Concerns about safeguarding were investigated, but inspectors found no evidence to support them.
Well-led was rated Good. The home had improved its audits and action plans since the last inspection. People and relatives described a friendly atmosphere and said managers were approachable.
The report also identified some improvements still needed. These included more person-centred detail in some risk care plans, dating some medicated creams, and completing actions linked to fire safety deficiencies.
Safeguarding
People said they felt safe, and staff understood how to identify and report abuse. Inspectors found no evidence to support the safeguarding concern that had prompted the inspection.
“We found no evidence to substantiate this concern.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough suitably skilled staff, and people’s needs were answered promptly.
“There were enough staff to provide safe and effective care. Staff responded to people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
Medicines management
Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely. Staff were trained and their competence was checked regularly.
“People's medicines were ordered, received, securely stored, managed and disposed of safely.” from the report
Improved management checks
Since the previous inspection, the home had strengthened its audits and used an improvement plan to track actions.
“The registered manager completed a range of audits which were effective in identifying where improvements were needed.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
People and relatives described the home positively. Inspectors saw people smiling and staff supporting them in a friendly way.
“There was a relaxed atmosphere within the home where people were seen to be laughing and smiling.” from the report
Risk plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not include enough person-centred detail about people’s specific health risks. Inspectors recommended adding more information, although staff knew people well and understood how to reduce these risks.
“We recommended more person-centred detail was included in some people's care plans to inform staff further on how to identify risks specific to people's health needs.” from the report
Medicinal cream dates
needs fixingSome creams were not always dated when opened or when they were due to expire. The manager took immediate action and introduced an additional check.
“These were not always dated when opened or when they were due to expire.” from the report
Fire safety actions
needs fixingA recent fire safety inspection had found deficiencies. The provider had an action plan to complete the required work.
“A recent fire safety inspection identified some fire safety deficiencies.” from the report
Minor infection hazards
minorInspectors found two minor infection control hazards. These were put right after the inspection.
“We identified two minor infection control hazards which were rectified following our visit.” from the report
- 01Have all the actions from the recent fire safety inspection now been completed?
- 02How do you check that topical medicinal creams are dated when opened and when they expire?
- 03How will you make sure each person’s risk care plan contains enough detail about their individual health needs?
- 04What evidence can you show that the new audits and continuous improvement plan are still being used?
- 05What were the current ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, as these areas were not assessed in this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; the report does not give current ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 2023 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, January 2020
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led and identified gaps in medicines, staff training and quality checks.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 5 December 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records and management checks.
People generally felt safe and were treated kindly. Inspectors found the home was clean, people's care needs were assessed, medicines were mostly managed safely, and people had access to food, activities and healthcare.
The main weakness was leadership and oversight. Quality checks had not always identified problems with medicines guidance, staff knowledge of some health conditions, staff deployment and the accuracy of some records. The overall rating stayed Good, but the well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
Inspectors found effective safeguarding systems and evidence that risks to people's health and wellbeing were being monitored.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse and people felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
“People told us staff were caring and treated them with kindness.” from the report
Activities and interests
The home offered varied activities, including movement, music, gardening, trips, crafts and religious activities.
“People were offered a range of activities to engage in.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People could access several healthcare services, and referrals were made when needed.
“People had access to a variety of external healthcare services such as GP, optician, dentist, occupational therapy and speech and language services and referrals were made in a timely way.” from the report
Quality checks did not catch all problems
needs fixingThe provider had monitoring systems, but they had not always been used effectively to identify and address the shortfalls found by inspectors.
“these had not always been used effectively to identify the areas of improvement we found during our visit.” from the report
Medicines guidance
needs fixingGuidance for staff giving some 'as required' medicines was not always available. Inspectors also found that records did not support how one person's time-critical medicine was being managed.
“The provider had identified protocols to guide staff when administering 'as required' medicines were not always in place.” from the report
Training about health conditions
needs fixingSome staff did not know enough about how to support people with specific conditions. The provider arranged further specialist training after the inspection.
“some people living at the home had specific health conditions and staff were not always aware of how best to support these people with their condition.” from the report
Staff availability in one area
needs fixingStaffing levels were maintained according to the home's assessment, but some people and relatives said staff were not always available, particularly for social and emotional support in one area.
“People living on the third floor known as 'Ash' told us there were not enough staff.” from the report
Incomplete oversight and reporting
seriousOne significant incident had not been reported to CQC during the registered manager's absence. Some DNAR records also needed more detail.
“during the absence of the registered manager, we found one significant incident had not been reported to us” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to your quality checks so that medicines, care records and DNAR records are reviewed reliably?
- 02What specialist training have staff completed about Parkinson's and other health conditions, and how do you check that they understand it?
- 03How many staff will normally be available on the floor where my relative would live, and how do you provide time for social and emotional support?
- 04How are agency staff briefed about each person's needs before they provide care?
- 05What action was taken after the inspection to improve reporting of significant incidents to CQC?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Good, while the well-led rating had fallen from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 January 2020 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 Homewood
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 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 Warwickshire
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 £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“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.