CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Perry Tree Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, social distancing, cleaning and outbreak management. The provider also described measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 review.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using personal protective equipment safely, supporting testing, and managing outbreaks. They also found cleaning schedules, spacious communal areas and support for people to keep in touch with family and friends.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Use of protective equipment
Staff were using PPE in line with government guidance, and PPE stations had been placed around the home.
“Staff wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in line with current Government guidance and the registered manager had established PPE stations at key points throughout the home.” from the report
Keeping families in touch
People were supported to use phone and video calls when visits were restricted or they were isolating.
“Staff supported people to make phone and video calls to maintain contact with family and friends between visits and when people were isolating after testing positive for COVID-19.” from the report
Clean and suitable spaces
The home had cleaning schedules and full-time cleaners. Its communal areas allowed people to spend time together while keeping apart.
“Cleaning schedules were in place and a team of full-time cleaners were employed to monitor cleanliness.” from the report
Infection-control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering visitors, admissions, testing, hygiene, PPE and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 02What arrangements are in place now for safe visits from family and friends?
- 03How do you make sure PPE stations are stocked and staff use PPE safely?
- 04How do you identify and manage infection outbreaks, and how are families informed?
- 05How will people be supported to keep in contact with relatives if visits are restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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, September 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but the home needed to improve medicines checks and other management systems.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 and 29 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, visitors and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found that people were safe, received kind and respectful care, and had their individual needs and preferences met. Staffing levels were considered sufficient. People had access to food, activities, healthcare and support to maintain relationships and independence.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because medicines audits had not found some recording errors, a missed dose and a late dose, and staff had received unclear instructions about skin protectors.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed staff supporting people patiently and respectfully, while encouraging choice and independence.
“People and their relatives confirmed they were treated with kindness and spoke positively about the staff's caring attitude.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's care needs, communication methods and preferences. The home adapted support to people's cultural, spiritual and individual needs.
“The service being delivered to people was person-centred.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Activities were chosen to support people's interests, confidence and relationships. People could take part in community activities, religious services and life-skills work.
“There was an emphasis on the provision of activities that were meaningful to the people living at the service.” from the report
Safe staffing and environment
Inspectors found enough staff to respond promptly. The home was clean and well maintained, with safety checks and emergency plans in place.
“People and relatives were happy with the level of staffing provided and our observations confirmed there were enough numbers of staff working at the service to support people promptly.” from the report
Medicines checks
needs fixingAudits had not identified errors in recording medicines stock. One person's medicine was missed once and another person's medicine was given late. The manager acted promptly, and inspectors said neither person was harmed.
“The audits had not identified one person's medication had been missed on one occasion and administered late for a second person.” from the report
Unclear skin-protection instructions
needs fixingThree staff gave different accounts of when one person's leg protectors should be used. The healthcare professional's telephone guidance had not been recorded, although this was corrected during the inspection.
“Three staff gave different accounts of when the protectors should be in place.” from the report
- 01How are medicines stock records and medicine administration now checked after the errors found during the inspection?
- 02How will you make sure missed or late medicines are identified and acted on quickly?
- 03How are instructions from healthcare professionals recorded and shared with all staff?
- 04How will you check that staff understand when skin protectors and other safety equipment should be used?
- 05What improvements have been made to the well-led rating since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good and Well-led was already rated Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 September 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 Perry Tree Centre
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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 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.