CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Nevin House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Nevin House is rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and strong support for people's independence.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 5 September 2019. One inspector spoke with a person using the home, two staff members, the provider and one relative. The inspector also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, clean surroundings and staff who understood people's risks and needs.
People were supported to make choices, communicate, stay independent and take part in activities they enjoyed. The home used some restrictive interventions only as a last resort and in a person-centred way. The overall rating stayed Good, while Well-led improved from Requires Improvement to Good since the previous inspection.
Kind and supportive staff
Inspectors found staff were caring and often gave extra support to help people enjoy activities and maintain relationships.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring, often going above and beyond their role to support people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about meals, activities and care. Staff supported people to communicate and to remain as independent as possible.
“People's independence was encouraged and maintained where possible.” from the report
Safe care
Staff understood people's risks and how to respond when people became distressed. Medicines, staffing and infection control were found to be managed safely.
“Medicines were managed safely and there were effective infection control practices in place.” from the report
Strong management
Inspectors found a positive culture, regular checks on quality and staff who felt able to raise concerns or suggest improvements.
“There was a commitment to learning and improving care through monitoring of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative to communicate their choices and needs?
- 02What restrictive interventions might be used, and how do you make sure they are used only as a last resort?
- 03How would you support my relative to stay independent while managing any risks?
- 04What activities, holidays and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you support my relative's health appointments, dietary needs and medicines?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the overall rating remained Good and the Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 October 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, March 2017
Nevin House is rated Good overall, but inspectors found that quality monitoring and records still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 February 2017. One inspector spoke with the two people living at the home and three staff members. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, suitable training, support with medicines and access to health professionals. People were treated kindly, involved in their care and supported to make choices, stay independent and enjoy activities.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Records did not always show what action had been taken, some information had been archived too early, and the training records were not fully up to date. Risk assessments also did not always explain what staff should do if a known risk, such as a seizure, happened.
Compared with the January 2016 inspection, people had better support with healthy and enjoyable food. However, the systems used to check the quality of the service still needed further improvement.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks and training were in place, and staff said they felt supported.
“People were supported by enough members of staff who had been safely recruited and received adequate training” from the report
Improved food
The home had improved its food provision since the previous inspection. People could choose from healthy, home-cooked meals and were supported with their individual dietary needs.
“We found that significant improvements in this area had been made since our last inspection.” from the report
Kind and personal care
Staff took time to understand people's lives, preferences and communication needs. People were treated with warmth, privacy and respect.
“People received the care they wanted based on their personal preferences and dislikes because staff were dedicated and committed to getting to know people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to follow hobbies and interests, take holidays and maintain relationships with friends and relatives.
“People were supported to maintain positive relationships with their friends and relatives.” from the report
Quality checks were not reliable
needs fixingThe systems used to monitor the service did not always find problems or show what action had been taken. Some information had also been archived too early.
“The provider's quality monitoring systems and processes had failed to identify these shortfalls.” from the report
Risk assessments lacked detail
seriousSome assessments identified risks but did not explain clearly enough what staff should do if the risk occurred, including in the event of a seizure. Staff knew what to do, which reduced the impact of this shortfall.
“Risk assessments lacked detail about the actions staff needed to take in the event of an identified risk occurring such as a seizure.” from the report
Records were incomplete
needs fixingRecords did not always show actions from meetings or provide a complete, up-to-date training picture. This made it harder to demonstrate that the service was being properly monitored.
“Information we asked for had not always been recorded to demonstrate the actions taken” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to quality checks and audits since inspectors found that they did not identify problems?
- 02How do you make sure risk assessments explain exactly what staff should do during a seizure or another emergency?
- 03How do you keep training records complete and up to date now?
- 04How do you prevent important records from being archived before they are no longer needed?
- 05How will you support my relative's food preferences, health needs, communication and independence?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with care records, medicines, staff files, training and quality-monitoring records reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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 Nevin House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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 Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“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.