CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Phil Mead House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff during the visit, safe recruitment checks and accurate medicine records, although earlier medicine administration errors had led to extra action.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed to meet people's needs. People received suitable food, healthcare and support with eating and drinking, and the home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff involved people and relatives in care decisions and promoted people's independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's likes, dislikes and routines. There were daily activities, people could choose when to get up, and the rating improved from Requires Improvement in 2016 after action was taken.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture and systems for monitoring quality. Inspectors found that audits, feedback and meetings were used to identify issues and make improvements.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Phil Mead House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, while noting earlier medicine errors had led to extra checks and retraining.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 February 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with people, relatives, staff, the manager and a visiting health professional. They also reviewed care plans, staff files, audits and incident records.
Inspectors found people were safe and received suitable care. Staff understood safeguarding, risk assessments were in place, medicines were checked, and staffing met people's needs during the visit. Staff were trained and supported, and people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The home offered daily activities, supported people's choices and involved people and relatives in care planning. Inspectors noted that medicine administration errors had happened before the inspection, but extra checks, staff retraining and an independent audit had been introduced. All five areas were rated Good, and the overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection in 2016.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to report abuse and concerns, and risks were recorded and monitored.
“People and relatives we spoke with felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking kindly and respectfully, giving people time to communicate and supporting their independence.
“Our observations during our inspection were of staff talking to people in a kind and respectful way, giving people the time they required to communicate.” from the report
More choice and activities
The home had employed an activities coordinator and staff provided activities when needed. People could choose their routines and when to get up.
“Not everyone we spoke with chose to engage in activities, but there was something on offer daily for people to do.” from the report
Quality was monitored
The home used audits, meetings and feedback from people and relatives to identify problems and make changes.
“Comprehensive audits were undertaken in all areas of the service to identify where improvements could be made, and actions were taken.” from the report
Earlier medicine errors
needs fixingThe service had reported several medicine administration errors before the inspection. Inspectors found that extra checks, retraining and an independent audit had been introduced, but families should ask how these improvements have been maintained.
“Prior to our inspection, the service had notified us of several errors in medicine administration.” from the report
Some people did not know about flexible bathing
minorSome people were not aware that they could request extra baths or showers when they wanted them. The manager said this would be explained to people.
“We found that some people were not aware they could have extra baths or showers as and when they wanted.” from the report
- 01What extra checks are now used for medicines, and what has the home learned from the earlier administration errors?
- 02How do you make sure every person knows they can request an extra bath or shower when they want one?
- 03How are activities matched to my relative's interests if they do not want to join group activities?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing and changing the care plan?
- 05How do staff record and respond to changes in my relative's health or healthcare needs?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the home, care and records looked at during the visit; the previous overall rating was Good in 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 March 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 Phil Mead House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 March 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 Coventry
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. 80 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.”
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
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.