CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at New Street North
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were safeguarded from abuse, risks were assessed and staffing was sufficient. Medicines were stored and administered safely, but checks of staff competency to give medicines had not been completed at the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people's needs and preferences, supported communication in different ways and helped people maintain family and community links. Some care plans did not reflect people's current support needs.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had an acting manager but no registered manager. Management audits had not identified missing medicine competency checks or some outdated care records.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but leadership and record checks required improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 15 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with one person, six relatives and five staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, safeguarding information, accidents and management checks.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in community activities. Staffing levels were suitable and relatives said people felt safe and well cared for.
Some care plans were out of date. Checks of staff skills in giving medicines had not been completed, although the home arranged these assessments after the inspection. The home had no registered manager in post and its overall rating was Good, with Well-led rated Requires Improvement.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take positive risks and pursue interests in their local community.
“People lived the lives they wanted to live and had regular opportunities to pursue social interests and be part of their local community.” from the report
Kind and person-centred care
Staff knew people well, respected their individuality and supported their dignity, privacy and human rights.
“Staff promoted people's dignity, privacy and human rights.” from the report
People felt safe
Relatives said people felt safe and comfortable. Inspectors found staff understood safeguarding procedures and how to respond to risks.
“Relatives told us people felt safe and comfortable with staff members.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff on duty to support people, and recruitment checks had been completed.
“Our observations during the day indicated there were enough staff on duty to support people with their care needs.” from the report
Out-of-date care plans
needs fixingSome care plans did not match people's current support needs. One person's needs had increased, but the plan still described support from one carer rather than two.
“Some peoples' care plans were not up to date.” from the report
Medicine competency checks
seriousThe provider had not recorded checks that staff were competent to give medicines safely. The checks were arranged after the inspection.
“We found no record of checks being conducted to check the competency of staff to administer medicines safely.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post at the inspection. An acting manager had been in place for four months and an application had recently been submitted.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Weak management checks
needs fixingThe provider's audit systems had not identified the missing medicine competency checks or some care records that needed updating.
“The provider's audit systems failed to identify staff medication competency assessments were not be conducted.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans now been reviewed so they match each person's current support needs?
- 02How often are staff checked as competent to administer medicines, and how is this recorded?
- 03Is there now a registered manager in post, or what is the current position on the application?
- 04What changes have been made to the provider's audits so missing checks and outdated care records are identified promptly?
- 05How does the home make sure people continue to have regular opportunities to take part in community activities?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 November 2022 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection risks and visiting arrangements were being managed well.
This was a targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors also asked about visiting arrangements and whether staffing pressures were affecting the home. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors found that staff and visitors followed current COVID-19 guidance. There were checks for visitors, effective use of protective equipment, testing arrangements, increased cleaning and recorded observation checks.
The home was assured to be meeting the requirements for safe visiting, admissions, infection prevention and control, and COVID-19 vaccination of non-exempt staff and visiting professionals. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a usual overall quality rating.
Infection control policy
The home's infection control policy was up to date, and audits showed that actions had been taken to maintain standards.
“The infection control policy was up to date.” from the report
Managing infection risks
The home used recorded observation checks and increased cleaning of frequently touched areas because people could not socially distance.
“The home managed risk in relation to infection well, as people were unable to social distance, regular observation checks were recorded and increased touchpoint cleaning was undertaken.” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was being used safely and that testing was available for people living in the home and staff.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Inspectors were assured that visitors were prevented from spreading infection and that visits were being facilitated in line with current guidance.
“We were assured the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing staffing pressures now, and have they affected people's care?
- 02What checks do you currently carry out for visitors when they arrive?
- 03How do you make sure staff and visiting professionals meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirements or have a valid exemption?
- 04How often are touchpoints cleaned and observation checks recorded?
- 05What infection control arrangements are currently used for visits, testing and PPE?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it did not assess or rate the other four questions or provide an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 February 2022 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 New Street North
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 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.