CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 27 Highfield Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, carried out testing and maintained hygiene, social distancing and visiting controls. This question was not given a quality rating.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and good arrangements for visiting and testing.
This was a targeted inspection on 30 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. The visit was announced.
Inspectors found robust visiting procedures, good supplies of protective equipment, regular COVID-19 testing and clean premises. They were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including visitor safety, social distancing and possible outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating. It only reports on the infection control areas checked during this inspection.
Visitor safety
Visitors were asked about their health, had to arrange visits in advance and were required to wear protective equipment. Garden visits were also possible.
“Robust visiting procedures were in place to prevent infection entering the home.” from the report
Testing and protective equipment
Staff were tested three times a week and people living in the home were tested every 28 days. Protective equipment was well stocked and staff used it in line with guidance.
“PPE stocks were good and PPE was available throughout the home. Staff wore PPE that met current guidance.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the premises clean and hygienic, with cleaning carried out during the day and night.
“The premises were clean and hygienic. Cleaning regimes were maintained throughout the day and night.” from the report
Up-to-date infection policy
The provider reviewed its infection prevention policy when government guidance changed. Staff had received training on infection control procedures.
“The provider was proactive to ensure the IPC policy was current and reviewed when new government guidance was issued.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current arrangements for visiting, including advance booking and garden visits?
- 02How often are staff and people living in the home tested for COVID-19 now?
- 03How do you make sure protective equipment is available and used correctly?
- 04How is the infection prevention policy updated when official guidance changes?
- 05What infection control arrangements would be used if someone tested positive?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other areas of care or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 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, September 2018
Inshore Support Limited - 27 Highfield Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end-of-life training still outstanding.
The unannounced inspection took place on 31 August 2018. One inspector reviewed information about the home, spoke with a person living there, relatives, the manager and care staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities or related needs. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines systems, regular risk reviews and action after accidents. Staff were trained and supported, and people were helped with food, healthcare, choices and daily activities.
People had warm relationships with staff, and were treated with dignity and respect. Care plans reflected their wishes, family contact was supported, and people were helped to access the community. The home had systems for complaints and monitoring quality.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection on 2 February 2016.
Consistent, safe staffing
The home had enough staff who knew the people living there well. Recruitment checks were in place to reduce the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who knew them well.” from the report
Respect for choice
Staff supported people to make everyday choices and maintain their independence. Inspectors saw staff respecting people's decisions and preferred routines.
“We observed a number of occasions where staff supported people to make their own choices and staff respected the decisions made.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described what mattered to each person, including their preferences, communication and activities. Staff understood people well and supported family relationships and community activities.
“People were supported by a small, consistent group of staff who were aware of what was important to them, their likes and dislikes and what made them happy.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, surveys and action plans to identify and follow up improvements. A new system was being introduced to review information more often.
“We saw there were a number of audits in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvement.” from the report
End-of-life training
minorEnd-of-life training requested at the previous inspection was still outstanding. The manager said it was being sourced and had attended the training themselves while staff waited.
“At our last inspection, staff had expressed an interest in attending 'End of Life' training.” from the report
- 01Has all care staff now completed the end-of-life training that was still outstanding at this inspection?
- 02What environmental improvements have been completed since the inspection, and what work remains?
- 03How are medicines, including as-needed medicines, checked and recorded now?
- 04How will you involve my relative in reviewing their care plan and daily choices?
- 05How do you use the newer auditing system to identify and respond to risks or changes in behaviour?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings were assessed as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 2018 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 27 Highfield Road
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 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 Dudley
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 £980 to £1,230 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 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.”
“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.