CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Robert Harvey House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including testing, cleaning, admissions and outbreak management. They were not always assured that staff used masks effectively in staff areas.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Robert Harvey House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements but masks were not always worn in staff areas.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than giving an overall quality rating. The home supported 38 people, although it could accommodate up to 52.
Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, social distancing, admissions, testing, cleaning, outbreak arrangements and the infection-control policy. They also found that people's wellbeing was reviewed during the pandemic, including support for someone who had lost weight when visits from loved ones stopped.
There was one shortfall. Staff in communal areas wore the required protective equipment, but masks were not always worn in staff areas where social distancing was possible. The manager had taken steps to address this, and the provider was directed to further infection-control resources.
Wellbeing reviews
The home reviewed how the pandemic affected people's wellbeing and updated care plans when needs changed. This included using video calls during mealtimes to support eating.
“The impact of the pandemic on people's wellbeing was regularly reviewed and care plans were updated to reflect people's changing needs.” from the report
Safer visiting
A visiting pod, booking system and cleaning arrangements allowed loved ones to visit in a safer setting.
“The home had a visiting pod that loved ones could access from the garden.” from the report
Testing arrangements
Separate rooms were used for different staff COVID-19 tests. The rooms were ventilated and included reminders about protective equipment and cleaning.
“Separate designated rooms were used for the two types of staff COVID-19 tests.” from the report
Infection-control planning
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for visitors, admissions, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Masks in staff areas
needs fixingStaff did not always wear masks in staff areas, even where social distancing was possible. The manager had taken steps to address this.
“However, staff were not always wearing masks in staff areas where social distancing was possible.” from the report
- 01What steps were taken after the inspection to make sure staff wore masks consistently in staff areas?
- 02How do you check that staff are using PPE correctly in all areas of the home?
- 03How are visitors booked and how is the visiting pod cleaned between visits?
- 04How do you assess whether a new resident can safely self-isolate before moving into the home?
- 05How are changes in a resident's wellbeing, weight or eating recorded and acted on when visits are restricted?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other four key questions or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 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.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Robert Harvey House was rated Good overall; inspectors found highly effective care, kind staff and strong activities, with some notification processes needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 June 2017, followed by an announced visit on 26 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care, looked around the building and checked care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Effective. Inspectors found people were safe, staff were well trained, medicines were given safely, and people were treated with dignity and respect.
Inspectors were especially positive about the dementia-friendly design, food, activities and support for people's health and choices. They also found two notification issues: one safeguarding incident was handled as a complaint before being reported to the local authority, and some restrictions on people's liberty were not notified to the CQC consistently. The provider took action during or after the inspection.
Well-trained staff
Inspectors found a highly trained team with regular supervision, ongoing learning and skills that helped staff meet people's individual needs.
“We found people living at the home were supported by suitably trained care and nursing staff” from the report
Food and nutrition
People enjoyed the food and had choices. Staff assessed nutritional risks and worked with other professionals when people needed help with weight loss or swallowing.
“Food standards were to a very high level.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were based on people's interests. People could take part in gardening, outings, music, quizzes, films and individual activities, including room visits where needed.
“The provider that went to great lengths to ensure people were supported to engage in activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and gave them time to communicate. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“Staff understood people's communication needs and gave people time to express their views, listening to what people said.” from the report
Safeguarding notification
needs fixingOne incident was investigated as a complaint when it should have been reported to the local authority. The provider took action to safeguard the person and reduce the risk of it happening again.
“We noted one incident had been investigated as a complaint when it should have been reported to the local authority.” from the report
Notifications about restrictions
needs fixingThe home had not always notified the CQC consistently when applications to lawfully restrict a person's liberty had been agreed. A new monitoring sheet was introduced to track these applications.
“We found there had been some inconsistencies in notifying us when applications had been agreed by the Supervisory Body to lawfully restrict a person” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every safeguarding incident is reported to the local authority when required?
- 02How do you track Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications and make sure the CQC is notified when an application is agreed?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty during busy periods, and how do you respond when people's needs change?
- 04How are activities matched to each person's interests, including people who cannot leave their bedroom?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan and making best-interest decisions if needed?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, medicine, staffing, training, safety and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 2017 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 Robert Harvey House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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 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.