CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Inglewood Residential Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe medicines practice, reviewed risk plans, enough staff, safe recruitment and systems for learning from incidents.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits and monitoring, open management, staff support and ways for people and relatives to share their views.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and better management, although some people said staff sometimes felt rushed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 25 October 2023. One inspector and an experienced care user spoke with 15 people and 5 staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, audits, recruitment records and policies.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found medicines were stored and recorded safely, risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing was enough, and staff were recruited safely. The home was clean and had systems to learn from incidents.
Management systems had improved since the previous inspection. Audits were being used to find and address problems, and people, relatives and staff could give feedback. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good.
This inspection only checked Safe and Well-led. The other areas were not inspected, so their previous ratings were carried forward into the overall rating.
Safer medicines
Medicines were stored securely, checked and recorded accurately. Staff had guidance for medicines given when needed.
“Medicine administration records were completed accurately to record when people had received their medicines.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its checks and monitoring since the previous inspection. It was no longer in breach of the regulation about good management systems.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17.” from the report
Listening to people
People, relatives and staff had opportunities to give feedback through meetings and other systems. Inspectors said concerns were addressed promptly.
“There were regular resident and relative meetings which discussed the home and agreed changes this included about activities, menus and the environment.” from the report
Some people felt staff were rushed
minorSome people said staff sometimes seemed rushed, although they also said they were happy with the support and inspectors saw that needs were met without waiting.
“People told us they sometimes felt staff were rushed, but confirmed they were happy with the support they received.” from the report
- 01How do you check staffing levels during busy periods, when some people may feel staff are rushed?
- 02How are falls, poor nutrition and other individual risks reviewed after a change or incident?
- 03How do you check each person's planned care has been completed every day?
- 04How are people's and relatives' views from meetings turned into changes?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not checked during this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 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, April 2023
Inglewood Residential Rest Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and enough staff on duty, but weaknesses in risk management, medicines storage and oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 17 January 2023, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records. They also made telephone calls and reviewed some records remotely.
The home had enough staff, completed most recruitment checks, and people said they felt safe. Staff were trained, supported people to eat and drink, helped them access healthcare, and respected their choices. Infection control arrangements were also found to be suitable.
However, some risks were not properly assessed or managed. Records for falls, pressure care and continence support were not always complete. Medicines were not always stored safely, there was no formal staff supervision system, and the building was not fully adapted for people living with dementia.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The provider remained in breach of Regulation 17, and a warning notice was issued.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff during the day and night to keep people safe and meet their needs. The home used consistent agency staff while it had vacancies.
“People were supported by the required number of staff during the day and night to keep them safe and meet their needs.” from the report
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report abuse.
“All relatives we spoke with told us they felt people were safe at the home and their relatives' needs were met.” from the report
Healthcare support
People could access healthcare professionals, and advice from those professionals was added to care plans. Relatives were kept informed about changes in people's health.
“We saw documents relating to health professionals' visits to the service and evidence advice received had been incorporated into people's care plans.” from the report
Positive staff culture
Inspectors found that managers promoted an open culture and staff felt supported. Staff worked together respectfully and showed commitment to the people they supported.
“Care staff spoken with showed respect for and commitment to the people they supported. We observed staff worked well as a team.” from the report
Respect for choices
Staff understood people's rights under the Mental Capacity Act and asked permission before providing care. People were involved in care planning where they could take part.
“People told us staff sought their permission before delivering their care and our observations supported this.” from the report
Risk records were incomplete
seriousInformation about reducing falls was not always clear. Pressure care charts and continence records were not consistently completed, so support and monitoring may not have been consistent.
“This meant people were at increased risk of, developing skin damage.” from the report
Medicines left unsecured
seriousDuring the visit, two laxative doses were left unattended on top of the medicines trolley while medicines were being given. The manager said this would be addressed with staff.
“We observed that whilst a member of staff was administering medication, doses of 2 laxative medicines were left on top of the medicines trolley unattended.” from the report
No formal staff supervision
needs fixingThere was no formal one-to-one supervision system. This meant missed opportunities to review staff performance and identify training or development needs.
“This meant there were missed opportunities to review staff performance and identify individual training and continuing development needs.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousQuality assurance systems did not identify several problems found during the inspection. The provider also could not initially provide formal safety checks for the premises and equipment, apart from fire safety audits.
“The provider's quality assurance systems and processes were not effective.” from the report
Environment not fully dementia-friendly
needs fixingThe building did not have directional signs or memory boxes outside bedrooms to help people living with dementia find their way and recognise their rooms.
“The premises had not been fully adapted to the needs of people living with dementia.” from the report
- 01How are you now recording and checking support for people at high risk of falls?
- 02How do you make sure pressure care and continence care records are completed consistently?
- 03What checks are now in place to make sure medicines are stored securely while they are being administered?
- 04How often do staff receive formal one-to-one supervision, and how are training needs recorded?
- 05What changes have been made to help people living with dementia find their way around the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the previous ratings for the uninspected questions were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 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.
Every inspection of Inglewood Residential Rest Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Inglewood Residential Rest Home →
- April 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Inglewood Residential Rest Home →
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2016.
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.