CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 5 Trinity Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and there were enough staff. Staff understood safeguarding, individual risks and behaviour support, although some medication recording problems and one missing staff risk assessment were found.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction and training, and people had access to healthcare and support with food and nutrition. Records did not consistently show capacity assessments, best interests decisions or the reason for a listening device.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, supporting independence and allowing people time to communicate.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People were involved in care planning and supported to do activities they enjoyed. Complaints were investigated and answered appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Staff felt supported and management responded to concerns. However, audits did not consistently identify problems with medicines, care records, capacity assessments and analysis of behaviour information.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Inshore Support Limited - 5 Trinity Street: Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but management checks needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 April 2018. One inspector spoke with all three people living at the home, staff, a relative and a healthcare professional. Records about care, medicines, staffing, incidents, complaints and audits were also checked.
Inspectors found people were safe, supported by enough staff and given their medicines as prescribed. Staff understood people's risks and knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns, seizures and behaviour that could place people or others at risk.
People were supported by kind staff who respected their privacy, choices and independence. They were involved in care planning, daily decisions and activities. Their health needs were followed up and complaints were investigated appropriately.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because audits had not found some problems with medicines records, care records and mental capacity paperwork.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe with the new staff group. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns.
“People told us they felt safe in the company of the new staff who were supporting them.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff treated people with dignity and gave them time to communicate. People were supported to make choices and remain independent.
“People told us staff were kind and caring and that staff looked after them.” from the report
Good health support
People were supported to see healthcare professionals and staff followed specialist advice, including advice about weight loss.
“People were supported to maintain good health.” from the report
Activities and choice
People helped plan their care and took part in activities both inside and outside the home.
“People were supported to take part in a variety of activities they enjoyed both in and outside the home.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received induction and specialist training, including training about epilepsy and autism. Staff said they felt supported.
“Staff were provided with an induction and training to equip them with the skills required to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingPeople received medicines safely, but records were not always complete. Controlled medicines, stock balances and an out-of-date medicine were not consistently identified by audits.
“Medication audits had failed to identify that carry forward amounts were not consistently recorded which meant it was difficult to audit the amount of medication in stock.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingThe home's audits did not reliably find problems identified by inspectors. This led to a Requires Improvement rating for Well-led.
“Audits in place had failed to identify a number of areas that had been highlighted during the inspection.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingFiles did not consistently show capacity assessments or best interests decisions. The use of a listening device was also not recorded.
“There was a lack of consistent evidence in people's files to demonstrate that capacity assessments had taken place which would record the decisions they were able to make.” from the report
Ongoing safeguarding investigation
seriousThe inspection followed concerns about verbal abuse and inappropriate restraint. The home had changed its staff group, but the investigation was still ongoing at the time of the inspection.
“The investigation was on-going at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01How are medicines stock balances, controlled medicines records and expiry dates checked now?
- 02How do you record capacity assessments and best interests decisions for people who need them?
- 03What was the outcome of the investigation into the concerns about verbal abuse and restraint?
- 04How do you make sure staff have the right training and risk assessments before supporting people with seizures or behaviour that challenges?
- 05What progress has been made with the planned refurbishment and making care plans easier to navigate?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, prompted partly by an allegation of abuse; the inspection did not examine that incident because it was subject to a criminal investigation, but it examined risks linked to restraint. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 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 5 Trinity Street
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 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.