CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Karam Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed and managed, medicines were given safely, and staff were recruited and trained appropriately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable food and support with eating and drinking. Staff were trained, consent was considered under the law, and healthcare professionals were involved when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People's cultural, religious and lifestyle preferences were recognised, and relatives or advocates were involved when people could not fully express their views.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed. People were supported with activities, relationships and complaints, although inspectors discussed whether more information formats might be useful for people with sensory loss.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff understood their responsibilities. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to monitor quality and plan improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Karam Court Care Home was rated Good in all areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 September 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with seven people living in the home, five relatives, the manager and two staff. They also reviewed four care records, three staff records and quality checks.
Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received medicines safely and were supported by trained staff. Risks were assessed and managed, while people were encouraged to remain independent. Staff involved healthcare professionals when needed.
People described staff as kind and respectful. The home provided choices about food, daily routines and activities, including meals that reflected people's cultural preferences. Care plans were personalised and relatives said they could raise concerns with the management.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 14 March 2017.
Managing risks
Staff knew people's risks and had clear guidance to support them safely. People prone to falls were still supported to remain mobile, with measures such as walking aids and referrals where needed.
“People's risks were known by staff and clear guidance was available in risk assessments for staff to ensure people were supported safely.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff who gave medicines were trained and their competence was checked. Audits were used to check that medicines were given as prescribed and stored safely.
“All staff who supported people with their medication had been trained and their competence assessed regularly to ensure they were safe to manage people's medication.” from the report
Respect and kindness
People and relatives described staff as caring and respectful. People were supported to make choices about their clothing, routines and daily life.
“They treat me with the greatest respect and kindness.” from the report
Personalised food
People were offered choices and the home prepared meals reflecting cultural needs and personal likes. Staff also supported people to eat and drink enough.
“We saw on the day of the inspection four separate meals were being prepared based on people's cultural needs and likes.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, surveys, meetings and feedback to monitor care and identify improvements. Inspectors found the records and support were person-centred and well managed.
“The systems supported the management for gathering, recording and evaluating the service provided.” from the report
More accessible information may be needed
minorSome information was available in easy-read and pictorial formats. Inspectors discussed whether further formats, such as audio or Braille, would be useful for people with sensory loss.
“However, we discussed with the registered manager other possible formats that may be useful such as tapes for people with sensory loss, or Braille.” from the report
- 01How would you provide information to my relative if they needed audio, Braille or another accessible format?
- 02How would you assess and manage my relative's particular risks, including any risk of falls?
- 03How would you support my relative's cultural, religious, dietary and lifestyle preferences?
- 04What activities would be available that match my relative's interests and choices?
- 05How would you involve me, an advocate or healthcare professionals if my relative could not make or communicate decisions?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; all ratings were assessed during this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 October 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.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 January 2017. One inspector and an Expert-by-Experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received their medicines safely, and were supported by trained staff. People were treated with dignity, offered choices and supported to access food, activities and healthcare.
The home had improved since the December 2015 inspection, when Safe and Well-led required improvement. New medicines checks and staff observations had been introduced. The overall Good rating means the inspection found the service met the required standards at that time.
Safer medicines process
The home had improved its medicines recording, training and checks since the previous inspection. Inspectors found medicines were stored securely and administered safely.
“At this inspection, we saw a number of improvements had been made in respect of the recording, administering and auditing of medication” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes and life histories. Staff knew how to respond when people became distressed or needed support.
“Care plans held details such as people's likes, dislikes and life history information and were regularly reviewed.” from the report
Activities and environment
People could take part in varied activities, use quiet areas and move around an environment designed to help people with dementia orientate themselves.
“We saw that a variety of activities took place in the home and there was something for everyone.” from the report
Improvement and oversight
The manager had acted on the previous inspection findings. Regular audits and staff practice observations were used to identify and address improvements.
“The registered manager had taken on board the finds of the last inspection and had worked hard to drive improvement across the home.” from the report
Feedback was not yet analysed
minorQuestionnaires had been returned but were still waiting to be analysed when inspectors visited. Ask how feedback is now reviewed and what action follows.
“We saw that questionnaires had recently been completed and returned and were waiting to be analysed for any actions to be taken.” from the report
- 01How are the daily medicines audits and twice-weekly staff observations maintained now?
- 02How do you check that staff training and refresher training remain up to date?
- 03How are relatives' questionnaires and other feedback analysed, and what changes have resulted?
- 04How will you make sure activities continue when the activity coordinator is away?
- 05How are people's care plans reviewed with them and their families when their needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 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 Karam Court Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
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 7 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.