CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 1 Whitehall Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood people's risks, safeguarding responsibilities and medicines needs. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks and systems for learning from accidents and incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. People were helped to eat and drink well, access healthcare and make decisions under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported choice, daily routines and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People were supported with activities, community access and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had no registered manager, which the report says is a legal requirement. Staff and relatives spoke positively about the current manager, and audits and action plans were in place.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home was not consistently well-led because it had no registered manager.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 December 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with staff, reviewed care and medicines records, and checked staff and management records. A relative and an advocate were also asked for their views.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, received their medicines, had access to healthcare and were supported by staff who knew them well. People were treated with dignity, involved in decisions and supported to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because there had been no registered manager since February 2019, although a new manager had applied to become registered.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's daily risks, triggers, preferences and support needs. Risk information was reviewed and shared when people's needs changed.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well, were aware of the risks to them on a daily basis and the actions they should take to reduce those risks and keep people safe from harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed respectful and positive interactions. Staff encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.
“We observed staff speaking to people respectfully and with kindness when going about their day.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, goals and preferred ways of being supported. People were helped to join in activities that mattered to them.
“They included information regarding what people liked, what they didn't like and what was important to them.” from the report
Good health support
People had health action plans and were supported to access healthcare. Staff recognised when people became unwell and responded appropriately.
“Each person had their own health action plan in place which included a full annual health check, short and long-term goals and the frequency of appointments with specialist healthcare professionals.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in activities such as drives, meals out, shopping, gardening, arts and crafts and visits to local attractions.
“We saw people were supported to take part in a variety of activities such as going out for drives, pub meals, visiting local attractions, clothes shopping, arts and crafts, gardening or watching sporting or wildlife programmes that interested them or listening to their favourite music.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home had been without a registered manager since February 2019. The current manager had applied to become registered, but this had not been completed at the inspection.
“It is a legal requirement for a registered manager to be in post and as such the provider is not meeting the legal requirement.” from the report
- 01Has the current manager's application to become registered with the CQC been completed, and if not, what is the expected timescale?
- 02How are audits and action plans checked while there is no registered manager?
- 03What changes were made after the medication error mentioned in the report, and how are medicines now checked?
- 04How will the home keep care plans and risk assessments up to date when people's needs change?
- 05How will the home continue supporting each person to access activities, the community and important relationships?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with the same rating as in 2014.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 25 May 2017. One inspector reviewed care records, staff recruitment and training records, staffing records, accident records and quality checks. The inspector spoke with relatives, staff, the deputy manager and the provider, but could not speak directly with people living in the home.
The home supported three people at the time, with space for up to three people. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training and support for people's health needs. They found that people's privacy, dignity, choices and communication needs were respected.
The home had support plans, reviews, a complaints process and checks on the quality of care. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection in December 2014.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe. Everyone received one to one support, and this was observed during the visit.
“We found that there were sufficient staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff needed training and regular competency checks before administering medicines. Records showed that medicines were given as prescribed.
“Records we saw showed that people received their medicines as it was prescribed.” from the report
Respectful support
Staff understood people's non-verbal communication and supported their privacy, dignity, independence and ability to make choices.
“We saw that people's privacy, dignity and independence was important to how they were supported.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider and manager carried out checks and used questionnaires and action plans to identify and address improvements.
“We found that questionnaires were being used to gather information about the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you find out and record my relative's wishes if they do not communicate verbally?
- 02How will you manage my relative's specific health, dietary or choking risks?
- 03How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about support?
- 04What activities are available outside the home and how are these matched to each person's interests?
- 05How often are medicines competencies, care plans and risk assessments reviewed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions; the inspector could not speak directly with people living in the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 2017 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 1 Whitehall Road
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- 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.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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 Sandwell
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 £1,190 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.