CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Quinton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, managed and reviewed. Medicines, staffing, safeguarding, infection control and accident reporting were also found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved governance and clinical oversight. They also found visible leadership, good communication and a strong focus on continuous improvement.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and stronger leadership after the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 3 November 2022. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and other records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient and infection control arrangements were suitable. They also found that staff understood safeguarding and that lessons were learned when things went wrong.
Leadership and oversight had improved since the last inspection. The registered manager was visible and approachable, and new systems helped monitor care and safety. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good, although the other three question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Risk management
Risks to people's health and safety were assessed and reviewed. Inspectors said improvements had been made since the previous inspection, including around allergies, catheter care and environmental hazards.
“Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were assessed, well managed and reviewed at regular intervals, or following a change in need.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored and given safely. Record keeping for transdermal patches had improved since the previous inspection.
“Medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to provide safe and effective care. Recruitment checks included references, work history and DBS checks.
“There were enough staff to provide safe and effective care.” from the report
Stronger leadership
The home had improved its governance and clinical oversight. The registered manager was visible, and staff felt able to speak up and suggest improvements.
“Improvements had been made to governance and clinical oversight.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents and incidents were investigated, with actions taken to reduce future risks. Staff said they felt confident reporting errors.
“Accidents and incidents were investigated to identify the cause and any actions that were needed to mitigate future risks.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you continuing to review risks such as allergies, catheter care and environmental hazards?
- 02How do you check that medicine records, including transdermal patch records, remain complete and accurate?
- 03What systems now monitor clinical care and governance, and what recent improvements have they identified?
- 04What was the previous rating for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
- 05How will you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people's needs change?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 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, November 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but risks and quality checks were not always managed well.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 15 September 2021. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicines and management records. Infection prevention and control was also checked.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare and personalised care. Staff were described as kind and respectful, and activities and the home environment had been improved.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found unstable wardrobes, chemicals sometimes left accessible, incomplete management of an allergy risk, and catheter records that were not routinely updated. New managers had started improvements, but the new checking systems had not yet become reliable.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in November 2017, to Requires Improvement. This means the care was not consistently unsafe or poor in every area, but important improvements were needed.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm, calm relationships between staff and people. Staff supported privacy, dignity and individual choices.
“People were treated with care, kindness and warmth.” from the report
Support with food and health
Staff understood people's dietary needs, including modified food and thickened drinks. They monitored weight and involved specialist health professionals when needed.
“We saw staff took the time to ensure people got the support they needed to ensure safe eating and drinking at mealtimes.” from the report
Medicines generally managed safely
Medicines were ordered, stored and given safely. The electronic system supported checks for as-needed medicines.
“Medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely according to best practice.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousSome bedroom wardrobes were unstable and had not been fixed to the walls. Chemicals were also left unattended and accessible on three occasions.
“Wardrobes in people's bedrooms were not fixed to the walls to prevent them falling and causing accidental harm or injury, some were found to be unstable.” from the report
Allergy risk
seriousOne person's latex allergy was not clearly recorded with the signs to look for or the action staff should take. The person was exposed to standard PCR tests contrary to guidance, although no reaction occurred.
“They had no care plan to alert staff to the potential signs and symptoms of a latex reaction or actions to take in response.” from the report
Clinical records
needs fixingCatheter changes were frequent, but the catheter passport was not routinely updated. This made it harder to identify complications and recurring problems.
“Records did not support effective monitoring of the catheter because the catheter passport was not routinely updated.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingAudits had not found several risks identified by inspectors. New quality systems were being introduced, but they needed time to become reliable.
“However, not all of these checks were effective.” from the report
Skin patch records
needs fixingRecords did not show that skin patches were always rotated or checked. Inspectors said this could increase the risk of skin thinning or overdose.
“Improvements were needed to records for skin patch medications to demonstrate they had been rotated according to manufacturer guidelines and checked to ensure they remained in place on the skin.” from the report
- 01Have all wardrobes now been fixed securely to the walls, and how are daily environmental safety checks recorded?
- 02How are allergies, including latex allergies, recorded and communicated to every member of staff?
- 03How are catheter changes, reasons and complications now monitored and recorded?
- 04What changes have been made to skin patch records to show rotation and checks that patches remain in place?
- 05What actions from the fire authority audit remain outstanding, and how does management check that they are completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the report compares the findings with the previous inspection published in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 2021 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 Quinton House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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 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.