CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Mockley Manor Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that safeguarding, risk management, staffing, medicines, infection control and accident monitoring were generally safe. They noted that some risk information was not consistent between risk assessments and care plans.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before moving in, staff training was maintained and people received healthcare when needed. Inspectors also found good support with eating and drinking, including specialist diets and nutrition monitoring.
- Caring?
- Good
- No rating was given for Caring in this focused inspection. The report describes positive feedback and says staff understood person-centred care and people's preferred routines.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home supported personal routines, communication needs, activities, relationships and cultural or spiritual occasions. Inspectors found that more detail about religious, cultural and personal end-of-life wishes would improve planning.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the home. Audits, meetings and feedback systems provided oversight, and the provider said it was continuing to improve its monitoring systems.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Mockley Manor Care Home is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and caring support, with some records and end-of-life planning still being improved.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 March 2023. Inspectors reviewed safe, effective, responsive and well-led care. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment records, audits and other documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, received suitable care and support, and had their personal routines, communication needs, activities and relationships considered. Medicines were managed safely, visiting was unrestricted and staff received training.
The inspection followed concerns about pressure care and end-of-life care. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Some improvements were still needed in keeping risk information consistent, recording some end-of-life wishes and maintaining one communal fridge.
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored and given safely. The electronic system supported safe use of patches and recording of as-needed medicines.
“Medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely.” from the report
Nutrition support
People had meal choices and specialist diets were recorded. Weights and monthly nutrition meetings helped identify when diets needed to change.
“People were given a choice of meals with visual prompts.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff understood that people should be supported in line with their routines, preferences and communication needs. Activities included individual support as well as group events.
“Staff understood the importance of person-centred care and recognised it was important to some people to maintain their preferred routines.” from the report
Positive leadership
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management and atmosphere. Staff said they could raise concerns and contribute ideas.
“We received positive feedback from people and their relatives.” from the report
Care records were not always consistent
needs fixingInspectors found some differences between risk management information and care plans. The provider had already identified this through its own checks and said it was being addressed.
“We found some improvements could be made to ensure information was consistent in risk management and care plans” from the report
End-of-life wishes needed more detail
needs fixingCare plans contained some information about where people wanted to spend their final days. Inspectors said religious, cultural and personal wishes needed to be recorded more fully.
“We found further information in respect of any religious, cultural or personal wishes would ensure people spent their final days as they wished to.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure pressure-care risks are recorded consistently in both risk assessments and care plans?
- 02How will you record my relative's religious, cultural and personal wishes about end-of-life care?
- 03What checks now make sure communal fridges are clean and opened food is dated?
- 04What changes have been made since the concerns about pressure care and end-of-life care were raised?
- 05How will you show us that the new auditing system is identifying and correcting problems?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not rated, and the overall rating used the previous inspection rating for any key question not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 2023 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safer care and stronger management after the previous Requires Improvement rating, but some medicines guidance still needed documenting.
This was an announced focused inspection on 28 October 2020. Inspectors checked whether the home had improved its arrangements for safe care and management. Two inspectors visited, while two gathered views by telephone.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found better risk assessments, enough staff with suitable skills, safer medicines systems, good infection control arrangements and stronger checks by managers.
The previous inspection was rated Requires Improvement and found two breaches. This inspection found the improvements were sufficient, so the home was no longer in breach. The other three question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Improved risk management
Risk plans were in place and staff had a better understanding of how to manage risks. Records showed that people were generally repositioned in line with their care plans.
“The management of risk associated with people's care had improved.” from the report
Staffing and safeguarding
Inspectors found enough staff with suitable skills, knowledge and experience on the inspection day. Staff had safeguarding training and understood their responsibility to keep people safe.
“There were enough staff with the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to effectively and safely meet people's needs.” from the report
Infection control
The home was following public health guidance on Covid-19. Equipment such as hoist slings and pressure cushions was labelled for individual people.
“At that inspection we were assured Mockley Manor met good infection prevention and control guidelines.” from the report
Stronger management oversight
The home had a planned programme of audits and a monthly service improvement plan. Managers checked that delegated tasks and improvements were completed.
“Improvements had been made to governance and oversight systems to ensure the provider was mitigating risks to people in relation to their care.” from the report
Better staff culture
Staff described a calmer atmosphere, improved morale and more confidence in the management and staff team than at the previous inspection.
“At this inspection staff spoke of an improved atmosphere and more confidence in the management and staff team.” from the report
Missing pharmacist guidance
needs fixingFor medicines given covertly, the decision was reviewed with the GP. However, there was no formally recorded pharmacist guidance confirming that crushing medicines and giving them in drinks was safe.
“However, there was no guidance from the pharmacist to confirm crushing medicines and giving in drinks was a safe way of administration.” from the report
Staff sickness cover
minorSome staff said meeting people's needs could be more challenging when unplanned sickness meant shifts were short. The provider said it was addressing sickness levels.
“However, some staff told us this could be more challenging if they had to work short because of unplanned staff absence due to sickness.” from the report
- 01What pharmacist guidance is now recorded for medicines that are crushed and given in drinks?
- 02How do you cover shifts when staff are unexpectedly absent through sickness?
- 03What was the missing statutory notification, and has it now been sent?
- 04How are risk plans and repositioning records checked for my relative?
- 05What were the current ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection, while infection control had also been checked in a targeted inspection on 19 October 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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.
Every inspection of Mockley Manor Care Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 October 2012.
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 Warwickshire
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 £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.