CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Magdalen House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines processes and effective infection prevention arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the last inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the last inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the last inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a clear management structure, supportive leadership, open communication and quality checks covering areas such as medicines, incidents, complaints and health and safety.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Magdalen House Residential Home is rated Good; inspectors found people were safe, supported by kind staff and effective management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 and 27 May 2022. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and reviewed care and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable safeguarding and risk processes, safe medicines management and effective infection control.
People and relatives spoke positively about the care and management. Staff were described as supportive, and the provider used audits, incident reviews, complaints and feedback to identify improvements.
This was not a full inspection of all five areas. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive came from the previous inspection in 2019, and helped calculate the overall Good rating.
Safety and staffing
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with calls answered promptly and care not rushed.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Risk management
Care records included individual risks such as falls, eating and drinking, and skin care. These were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“Risk assessments clearly guided staff to care for people in a safe way.” from the report
Medicines
Inspectors found that people received medicines as prescribed and that checks were completed to reduce the risk of errors.
“Staff managed people's medicines well in accordance with national guidelines.” from the report
Caring culture
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that staff were supported by managers and the provider.
“People benefited from a positive culture in the home.” from the report
Quality oversight
The provider used audits, incident reviews, complaints and visits by trustees to monitor the service and follow up improvements.
“An effective and robust system of internal and external quality assurance checks helped ensure continuous development and improvement of people's care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01The last inspection rated Effective, Caring and Responsive, but these areas were not examined this time. How do you currently check and maintain standards in each of them?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people's needs change or staff are unavailable?
- 03How are individual risks, such as falls, eating and drinking, and skin care, reviewed and updated?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given correctly, including medicines needed between the monthly order cycle?
- 05What recent improvements have resulted from audits, complaints, accidents or incidents?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive carried over from the inspection published on 7 November 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 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, November 2019
Magdalen House Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicines and staffing issues to keep under review.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 August and 4 September 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff knew their needs, and care was kind, respectful and personalised. People were supported to make choices, stay active and maintain relationships.
Inspectors noted some issues. Medicines audits had found more errors than acceptable, although nobody had been harmed. Some references in recruitment files had gaps, and people gave mixed views about waiting times for staff. The home had taken action to address these points.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in March 2017. Effective had previously been Requires Improvement and had improved to Good. The other four question ratings remained Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and risk management, and safety checks and emergency plans were in place.
“All of the people we spoke with said they felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff, people and relatives. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and dignity.” from the report
Good health support
Staff referred people to health professionals promptly and worked with other services to support their wellbeing and avoid unnecessary hospital admissions.
“Staff worked in partnership with health professionals to maintain people's well-being and avoid unnecessary hospital admissions.” from the report
Medicine errors
needs fixingAudits found more medicine errors than acceptable. Nobody had suffered ill effects, and the home had introduced extra checks and was bringing in an electronic medicines system.
“Medicines audits identified a higher then acceptable number of errors happening at the service.” from the report
Gaps in references
needs fixingSome staff references did not contain all the information expected. The manager said these would be followed up in future recruitment.
“We found some references had gaps in the information provided.” from the report
Mixed views about waiting times
minorSome people said they sometimes waited a long time for staff, while others said they were never kept waiting. Inspectors saw staff attend call bells within a few minutes.
“three people said there was sometimes a "long wait", five people said they were, "never kept waiting".” from the report
- 01How many medicine errors have there been since the inspection, and what difference has the electronic medicines system made?
- 02How do you check that staff references contain complete information before staff start work?
- 03What are the usual call bell response times now, and how do you respond when someone is waiting?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05How can relatives be involved in care reviews, activities and decisions about end of life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; the previous rating was Good overall, with Effective improving from Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 November 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 Magdalen House Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Magdalen House Residential Home →
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Magdalen House Residential Home →
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.