CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Janet Fay House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including testing, protective equipment, admissions and visiting. They were only somewhat assured about the building's layout and hygiene because some repairs had been delayed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, so this question was not assessed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, so this question was not assessed.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, so this question was not assessed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, so this question was not assessed.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Janet Fay House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control measures but some repairs had been delayed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 23 March 2021. It looked at how well the home was preventing and controlling COVID-19 infections. Seven people were living there, and the home could support up to eight people.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, admissions, shielding and social distancing. People were supported to keep in touch with relatives through visits and video calls.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the safety of the building's layout and hygiene. Some repairs had been delayed, including repairs to communal bathroom and toilet floors and replacement of damaged kitchen cupboard doors.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to clean their hands, have their temperature checked and agree to a lateral flow test. The home provided protective equipment.
“Visitors were required to wash and sanitise their hands, have their temperature taken and consent to a Lateral Flow Test.” from the report
Testing and protective equipment
Staff were tested at least three times a week and people every 28 days. Inspectors saw staff using protective equipment correctly, and supplies were plentiful.
“There was a plentiful stock of PPE. Staff were observed to wear their PPE correctly on the day.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People could keep in touch with relatives through different methods, including video calls and planned visits.
“People were supported to maintain contact with relatives through a variety of means, including video calls.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training from local health agencies about infection control, COVID-19 and how to use protective equipment.
“Staff had received training from local health agencies for infection control, how to put on and remove their PPE and COVID-19.” from the report
Delayed repairs
needs fixingSome repairs had been delayed because of COVID-19. Inspectors said repairs were needed to help maintain a clean and effective environment.
“There were areas of the home identified for repairs but due to COVID, had been delayed.” from the report
- 01When will the repairs to the communal bathroom and toilet floors be completed?
- 02When will the damaged and split kitchen cupboard doors be replaced?
- 03How is the home keeping these areas clean while the repairs are delayed?
- 04How often are staff and residents currently tested for COVID-19?
- 05When was the home's last full inspection covering care quality, and what were its findings?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the wider quality of care and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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, January 2019
Janet Fay House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some refurbishment still needed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 11 December 2018. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with seven people, two staff members and the registered manager. They observed care and checked medicines, care records and management audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported by trained staff who knew their needs. Medicines were given safely, people were involved in decisions, and staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.
The report says some areas of the home needed refurbishment. The provider was discussing this with the landlord. Additional staffing hours were also being discussed to support one person's increased need to access the community.
The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in July 2016. The report says the service remained Good overall, and that care had improved in the Caring area.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors observed medicines being administered and recorded safely. Staff had training and their competence was checked.
“Medicines were stored and administered safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people's needs, preferences and signs of anxiety. People were supported with dignity and encouraged to be independent.
“Our observations showed that staff knew people well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were reviewed when people's needs changed. People were supported to follow their interests and meet their cultural and religious needs.
“People were supported to fulfil their religious and cultural needs.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits, spot checks, meetings and surveys to monitor and improve care.
“The registered manager carried out spot checks on staff and audits on the service.” from the report
Refurbishment needed
needs fixingInspectors said the environment met people's needs, but some areas needed refurbishment. The provider was negotiating with the landlord about responsibility for the work.
“The environment met people's needs but refurbishment was needed of some areas.” from the report
Household chores
minorPeople were encouraged to take part in household tasks to build independence. A minority of people did not like being expected to do these chores.
“A minority of people did not like the fact they were expected to do household chores.” from the report
Change of manager
needs fixingThe registered manager was due to leave. Arrangements were in place to recruit a replacement, so families should ask how continuity will be maintained.
“The registered manager was due to leave the service and arrangements were in place to recruit a new manager.” from the report
- 01What refurbishment is needed, who is responsible for it, and when is it expected to be completed?
- 02Have the extra staffing hours for community access now been agreed, and how are changing support needs reviewed?
- 03How will the home maintain continuity while the registered manager leaves and a replacement is recruited?
- 04How are people involved in deciding which household tasks they do, especially if they do not want to do them?
- 05How will the planned quarterly service user forum give people more say in how the organisation is run?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care provided, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 2019 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 Janet Fay House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 March 2011.
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 Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“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.