CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Poplars
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using appropriate infection prevention and control measures. They found arrangements for visitor screening, protective equipment, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Poplars was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements during the pandemic.
This was an announced inspection on 9 November 2020. It was part of a CQC review of infection prevention and control in care homes. Five people lived at the home, which can support up to five people with a learning disability or autism.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections from spreading. This included visitor screening, social distancing, safe use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and hygiene, and arrangements for preventing or managing outbreaks.
The home also took steps to support people's wellbeing and contact with loved ones during the pandemic. These included extra laptops, plans for a visiting pod and gym equipment.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other main areas of care.
Visitor safety checks
Visitors were screened before entering, including temperature checks, hand sanitising and questions about possible Covid-19 contact.
“Visitors were required to complete a Covid -19 screening tool prior to entering the home to make sure they could visit safely during the pandemic.” from the report
Protective equipment
Protective equipment was available at the entrance for visitors.
“Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) including masks, aprons and gloves were available at the entrance for visitors to use to keep people and themselves safe.” from the report
Reducing infection risks
The provider took steps to reduce the risk of infection by limiting staff working across different sites and considering safer travel arrangements.
“The provider had taken action to prevent the transmission of infection.” from the report
Keeping people connected
The home bought extra laptops and ordered a visiting pod to help people keep in touch with loved ones safely.
“The provider had purchased additional laptops to support people to keep in touch with their loved ones.” from the report
Supporting wellbeing
Gym equipment was bought to help people stay active, and staff could discuss pandemic concerns with managers.
“People and staff were supported to maintain their wellbeing.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened before entering the home?
- 02How do you provide and monitor protective equipment for visitors and staff?
- 03How are staff prevented from increasing infection risks by working across different sites?
- 04How are people supported to keep in touch with their loved ones when visits are restricted?
- 05How do you arrange testing and respond if someone develops an infection?
This was a focused thematic inspection of infection prevention and control, and it did not rate the other main areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Poplars rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with past medication errors addressed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 November 2018. One inspector spoke with all five people living in the home, staff, relatives and the manager. They also reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, medicines given on time, personalised support, respectful relationships and activities that matched people's wishes.
Inspectors said the overall Good rating had continued from the previous inspection on 24 May 2016. They found no serious risks or concerns and said checks were used to identify and fix problems promptly.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw that staff had time to talk with people, provide support and complete tasks. Staffing levels supported one-to-one work.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans explained how each person wanted to be supported. Staff knew about people's routines, communication and health needs.
“Care plans contained personalised information for staff on how people wanted to be supported with their routines, communication and health” from the report
Respectful care
Staff asked permission before entering bedrooms, spoke politely and gave people time to understand information and make choices.
“People were cared for by staff who were kind and respectful.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to attend education, social activities and local groups, as well as plan holidays and other personal goals.
“People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Responsive management
The manager used audits and feedback to identify issues and acted quickly. The home changed pharmacy after problems with timely medicine deliveries.
“We saw that the registered manager took swift action to address any issues identified.” from the report
Previous medication errors
needs fixingInspectors recorded two medication errors. The errors had been investigated and medicine boxes were relabelled with 24-hour times to reduce confusion, but families should ask how this is monitored now.
“There had been two medication errors in the home which had been investigated by the registered manager.” from the report
Pharmacy delivery delays
needs fixingThe previous pharmacy had not always delivered medicines on time. The home had started using a different pharmacy by the inspection.
“The service had recently started to use a different pharmacy as the previous one had not always delivered medication in a timely way.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to prevent a repeat of the two medication errors?
- 02How do you monitor that the new pharmacy delivers medicines on time?
- 03What is the current position on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application mentioned in the report?
- 04How will you support my relative to make everyday choices and take positive risks safely?
- 05How are my relative's activities, goals and family contact recorded and reviewed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating; all ratings continued from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 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 Poplars
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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.