CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rayner House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough staff. Medicines were managed safely, but records did not show when thickened fluids had been given to some people.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and understood people's needs. People received suitable food, drinks and healthcare, and the home worked with other professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind, caring and attentive. Staff respected privacy, dignity, independence, preferences and daily routines.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's needs, histories, preferences and communication needs. People had activities and trips, and felt able to raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff were positive about the management. Leaders checked care plans, the environment, incidents and staff practice, and used feedback to improve the service.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rayner House rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 6 March 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals, and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, good support with food and healthcare, respectful relationships and care tailored to people's choices.
There were two record-keeping shortfalls. Some staff files did not contain recent photographs, proof of identity or evidence of the legal right to work. Records were also not kept to show when people prescribed thickened fluids had received them, although the manager took immediate action on this.
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
“People told us about living at the home and said the staff were kind, caring and attentive to them.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient for people's physical and social needs.
“There was a low staff turnover and people were supported by enough staff to meet their physical and social needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences, routines and support needs. They promoted independence rather than doing things people could do themselves.
“People's preferences and routines were known and supported.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
People received food and drinks suited to their needs and choices, and staff involved healthcare professionals when needed.
“People were supported to access food and drinks which met their nutritional needs in line with their preference and choices.” from the report
Activities and communication
People had a range of activities and trips. Communication needs were identified and information was provided in suitable formats.
“People enjoyed a variety of daily activities, such as quizzes and crafts.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff recruitment files did not contain a recent photograph, proof of identity or evidence of the legal right to work in the UK. The manager recognised this and said photographs were being updated.
“The staff recruitment records had not included a recent photograph, proof of identification checks, and their legal right to work in the UK.” from the report
Thickened fluids not recorded
needs fixingThere were no records showing when some people prescribed thickened fluids had received them. Staff knew who needed them, and the manager took immediate action to record this going forward.
“However, where people had been prescribed thickened fluids there were no records kept to evidence when they had been given.” from the report
- 01Have all staff files now been updated with photographs, identity checks and evidence of the legal right to work?
- 02How do you record each time thickened fluids are given, and how is this checked?
- 03How would you support my relative's specific routines, preferences and independence?
- 04How do you make sure changes in my relative's health or needs are shared with relatives and health professionals?
- 05What activities and communication support would be available for my relative?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good, published in May 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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 Rayner House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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 Solihull
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 9 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.