CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Magnolia House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier safety and liberty concerns resolved.
The inspection was announced and took place on 4 December 2018. One inspector observed care, checked two people's care plans and medicines records, reviewed two staff files, and spoke with people, a relative, a staff member and the registered manager.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable risk plans, safe medicines management, enough staff, suitable food and drink, and a clean and well-maintained home.
People were treated with respect and supported to make choices and stay as independent as possible. Care was tailored to people's needs, interests, communication styles, relationships and cultural backgrounds.
At the previous inspection in November 2017, the home was Requires Improvement overall. Since then, window restrictors were installed, a person's liberty conditions were updated, and the inspection found all areas had improved to Good.
Personalised risk support
Risk plans covered individual needs such as epilepsy, falls, choking and community activities. They aimed to keep people safe without unnecessarily limiting their freedom.
“Management plans were designed to allow people as much freedom as possible while minimising risks to them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicating respectfully and adapting their approach to people's abilities. People were supported with privacy, dignity and important relationships.
“Staff promoted people's privacy, dignity and independence.” from the report
Responsive activities and relationships
People took part in activities suited to their interests and abilities, including trips and holidays. The home also supported contact with families and access to cultural and religious activities.
“People benefited from a variety of activities to suit their personal tastes and abilities.” from the report
Improved oversight
The provider acted on earlier problems and used daily checks, staff feedback, surveys and care records to monitor the home.
“The provider had systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are my relative's risk assessments reviewed when their health, abilities or activities change?
- 02How do you check that medicines records are accurate and that staff remain competent to administer medicines?
- 03How will you support my relative to make choices and remain independent while managing any risks?
- 04What progress has been made on providing more information in pictorial format?
- 05How would you meet my relative's end of life needs if these became relevant?
This was an announced inspection of the overall quality of the home and all five key questions; end of life care was not examined in detail because it was not relevant to the people living there at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but serious safety risks led to a warning notice.
Inspectors visited the home on 8 and 16 November 2017. The inspection was unannounced, and they spoke with people, staff, the manager, relatives and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, audits and other management records.
On the first day, first-floor windows did not have restrictors, even though someone was at risk of falling from a height. Inspectors issued a warning notice. Restrictors were fitted by the second day. They also found clutter, loose floor tiles, an unsecured skirting board and poor lighting that could cause trips, falls or injury.
People did not always receive support in line with the conditions of a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation. The home's checks had not identified or fixed all the problems. However, staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control, training and healthcare support were generally satisfactory.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Care was tailored to people's needs, activities were available and people were involved in decisions. The overall rating of Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently meeting the required standard, although caring and responsive care were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke highly of staff. Inspectors found that staff treated people with dignity, respected privacy and supported personal choices.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff respected people's privacy.” from the report
Individual support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences, goals and health needs. Staff responded when people's health or support needs changed.
“People received individualised care that met their needs.” from the report
Activities and independence
People chose from activities at home and in the community. They were supported to build skills such as cooking, laundry, budgeting and housework.
“People enjoyed taking part in a wide range of activities of their choosing.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
There were enough suitably recruited staff. Inspectors found that medicines records were accurate and medicines were given by trained staff.
“People received their medicines when needed from staff who were trained to undertake this duty.” from the report
Risk of falling from a window
seriousFirst-floor windows did not have restrictors even though a known risk had been identified. Inspectors considered that a fall could have caused injury or death, although restrictors were fitted by the second inspection day.
“we found there were no restrictors on windows on the first floor, where people were at risk of falling from a height.” from the report
DoLS conditions not always followed
seriousA person did not always receive the staff support required when travelling back to the home after an outing. Inspectors could not be confident that the person's restrictions were being followed lawfully.
“A person did not always receive care in line with the restrictions placed on their liberty by a supervisory body” from the report
Unsafe and cluttered areas
needs fixingClutter, loose floor tiles, an unsecured skirting board, poor lighting and unsecured CCTV wiring created risks of trips, falls or injury. Some issues were addressed during the inspection, but not all work was complete.
“parts of the premises were cluttered, which made it unsafe for people using the service.” from the report
Checks did not find problems
needs fixingThe home's audits were not effective enough to identify and fix the safety and risk-management shortfalls found by inspectors.
“the audits failed to identify and rectify shortfalls identified in this report.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that all first-floor window restrictors remain fitted and secure?
- 02How do you make sure every condition in a person's DoLS authorisation is followed at all times?
- 03Have all the loose tiles, skirting board, lighting and CCTV wiring issues been fully repaired?
- 04How often are safety risks, building repairs and care records audited, and who checks that problems are fixed?
- 05What staffing arrangements are in place when people need support with community outings or transport?
This inspection covered all five key questions and included care records, medicines, staff records, audits, complaints, safeguarding information, incidents and accidents. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 2018 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 House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Sutton
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 £1,230 a week. 81 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”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.