CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Magnolia Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found up-to-date risk plans, safe medicines systems, enough staff and appropriate recruitment checks. Staff had safeguarding and infection control training.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, regular training and supervision. People were supported with food, healthcare, healthy living and decisions made in their best interests.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were respectful and supportive. People were involved in decisions, had their privacy respected and were encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included communication needs and preferences. People were supported with activities and complaints were investigated in a timely way.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff spoke positively about the management. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to identify and act on improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end-of-life care plans still being developed.
This was a planned inspection on 12 March 2020. Two inspectors spoke with both people living in the home and five staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, policies and other records, and made further checks after the visit.
The home supports two people with autistic spectrum disorders and learning disabilities. Inspectors found comprehensive risk plans, safe medicines practice, enough suitably checked staff and good infection control. Staff had relevant training and supported people to use health services, eat well and make choices.
People spoke positively about the care. Staff respected privacy, communication needs, independence and personal preferences. People took part in activities at home and in the community, and complaints were investigated promptly.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating was Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 13 September 2017.
Detailed safety planning
Risk plans covered personal safety, communication, behaviour and emotional support. They were kept up to date as people's needs changed.
“Risk management plans were comprehensive and covered for example, communication, personal safety, behaviour and emotional support and accessing the community.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff competence was checked and regular audits were carried out.
“The service followed safe protocols for the ordering, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with respect. People appeared comfortable with staff and were supported to make their own decisions.
“During the inspection staff were observed speaking respectfully towards people and people appeared at ease in their company.” from the report
Communication and independence
Care records described how people communicated and made decisions. People were supported with everyday tasks, community access and activities.
“People's communication needs were clearly documented in their care plans.” from the report
Responsive management
The home used audits, feedback and meetings to spot problems and make changes. Inspectors found that identified actions were taken promptly.
“Quality assurance processes demonstrated good governance and effective risk management.” from the report
End-of-life planning
minorThe manager was still developing people's end-of-life care plans. Families should ask how individual wishes will be recorded and kept up to date.
“At the time of the inspection, the registered manager was in the process of further developing people's end of life care plans.” from the report
- 01How will you record and review my relative's wishes about end-of-life care?
- 02How do you use my relative's preferred communication method, including any signs or symbols, in everyday care?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available to my relative, and how would staff support them to take part?
- 04How would you update risk plans if my relative's behaviour, health or support needs changed?
- 05How would you support my relative to make decisions about their care and daily life?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, including discussions with both people and five staff and reviews of care, medicines and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 2020 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some training records overdue and no registered manager in post.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 24 August 2017. The inspector spoke with one person, a staff member and managers, reviewed care plans, staff files and other records, observed care, and later spoke with two relatives.
The home supported two people with autistic spectrum disorders and learning disabilities, living in two separate flats. Inspectors found robust safeguarding, safe medicines systems, suitable staff checks and risk assessments that were regularly reviewed.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent, access the community and receive personalised care. Staff were seen treating people with dignity and respect, and healthcare advice was included in care plans.
All five areas were rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection. Inspectors noted that there was no registered manager at the time, although the manager had applied to register.
Safeguarding
Staff and managers knew how to recognise and report possible abuse. The home had systems to protect people and escalate concerns.
“People continued to be protected against harm and abuse as the service had robust systems in place to safeguard people.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines stocks and records were accurate. Regular audits helped identify and address errors promptly.
“People continued to receive their medicines safely. Regular medicines audits carried out by the service, ensured issues were identified and rectified in a timely manner.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Staff asked for permission, respected people's decisions and used their preferred ways of communicating.
“The service had an embedded culture that treated people with respect and promoted their dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, health needs, communication and aspirations. People were supported to take part in activities and use the community.
“People continued to receive care and support that was person centred.” from the report
Quality checks
Regular audits covered medicines, care planning, maintenance and training. The home used action plans when it found problems.
“The service carried out regular audits to drive improvement and enhance the care people received.” from the report
Overdue training
needs fixingSome training records had expired. The area manager said refresher courses had been scheduled, but the report does not confirm that all training had already been completed.
“We identified training records that had elapsed and shared this with the area manager who confirmed their awareness of this and confirmation training courses had been scheduled.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager in place during the inspection. The manager had applied to register with the CQC.
“The service did not have a registered manager in place.” from the report
Appraisals not always recorded
minorStaff said appraisals took place, but these were not always documented. Supervisions were recorded as taking place regularly.
“Although appraisals were not always documented, staff confirmed these took place.” from the report
- 01Have all the training courses that were overdue at the inspection now been completed?
- 02Has the manager's application to become registered with the CQC been approved?
- 03How do you record staff appraisals and make sure they are completed and documented?
- 04How often are medicines audits carried out, and how are any errors followed up?
- 05How will my relative be involved in reviewing their care plan and choosing activities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five quality areas, with records reviewed, care observed and people, staff, managers and relatives consulted. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 September 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 Magnolia Court
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 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 Lambeth
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“She is just one of those people that looks around, sees what needs to be done and does it.”
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.