CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rubery Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were considered safe, and staff understood safeguarding and individual risk assessments. Several medicine errors had occurred before the inspection, but changes to medicine administration had greatly reduced them.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs and worked with health professionals. Some refresher training was needed, and a plan had been made for this.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and interested in the people they supported. People were offered choices and supported to retain privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was based on people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People could take part in activities they enjoyed, although a professional felt the home could be more proactive about family information and wider community involvement.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff were approachable and listened to feedback. Audits, reviews and incident checks were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with earlier medicine errors and some training updates being addressed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 September 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicine records and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported by staff who understood their needs, respected their choices and helped them stay as independent as possible.
Inspectors found that several medicine errors had happened before the inspection. The manager had changed the way medicines were given, and errors had reduced significantly. Some staff refresher training was also due, with updates booked.
The home had the same overall Good rating at its previous inspection, published on 1 April 2017. The inspection found no restrictive intervention practices were being used.
Kind and respectful support
People appeared relaxed with staff and had warm relationships with them. Staff respected people's choices, rights and need for privacy.
“People were relaxed in the presence of staff and there was evidence of warm and friendly relationships.” from the report
Individual care
Staff knew people's needs, preferences and ways of communicating. Care plans were available in accessible formats, including easy-read and visual information.
“People's individual communication needs were explored, and staff could easily tell us how individual people communicated” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to follow their own routines, go out and develop skills. Staff used the least restrictive approach and did not use restrictive intervention practices.
“Outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Good management oversight
The management team was approachable and used audits, incident reviews and feedback to improve the service. Changes to medicine practice had reduced errors.
“The provider had a range of effective quality monitoring arrangements in place.” from the report
Previous medicine errors
seriousSeveral medicine errors had been identified before the inspection. The home had changed its procedures and errors had reduced, but families should ask how this improvement is being kept in place.
“Several medicine errors were identified prior to our inspection that had led to the registered manager reviewing how medicines were administered.” from the report
Training refreshers
needs fixingThe manager had identified that some core staff training needed refreshing. The report says updates were booked for September to November 2019.
“The registered manager had identified there was a need for refresher training for staff in some core skill areas.” from the report
Community activities and family updates
minorA social care professional felt the home could do more to tell families what staff were doing and offer wider community involvement. The manager planned to review and increase activities.
“A social care professional told us they thought the staff could be more proactive in telling families what their staff are doing and offering them wider community involvement.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the medicine errors, and how do you check that medicines are now given safely?
- 02Has all the refresher training identified in the report been completed, and which areas did it cover?
- 03How will you keep families informed about people's activities and support in the community?
- 04What activities are currently available for someone with my relative's interests, communication needs and mobility?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing and updating the care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, the care home premises and the personal care provided to people living in two flats; CQC did not inspect those flats as supported-living premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rubery Court was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some record-keeping to improve.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 February 2017. One inspector and a specialist nurse advisor visited. They spoke with three people, staff and managers, observed care, and checked medicines, care plans, recruitment, complaints and quality records.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities, plus two people in supported living. Inspectors found people were safe, received their medicines as prescribed, and were supported by enough suitably checked staff.
Staff were described as skilled, kind and caring. People were involved in decisions as far as possible, and staff used different ways to understand their communication. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed, and people had access to activities in the community.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the first inspection at this location since it was registered under the provider in January 2016.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found that medicines were given safely and as prescribed. Records matched the medicines remaining, and storage temperatures were checked.
“We found people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence. They used different communication methods to involve people in decisions.
“People were supported by a care staff team who were kind and caring in their approach.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences and were reviewed regularly. People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing them.
“We saw care plans were detailed, reflected people's needs and the care we saw provided to them.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff had the required skills and knowledge, and competence was checked for important tasks. Staff said they felt supported and motivated.
“People were cared for by a staff team who had the required skills to support them effectively.” from the report
Informal complaints were not always recorded
needs fixingSome complaints or issues raised informally during care reviews were not entered in the complaints records. Inspectors said this could make it harder to identify improvements.
“We did find where complaints were made or issues raised informally through care reviews, these were not always recorded in complaints records.” from the report
Some records were not accurate
needs fixingInspectors found that some records did not accurately describe the actions staff had taken after accidents or incidents. The area manager said this would be corrected immediately.
“We found the actions taken by care staff were appropriate however, some of these records did not accurately reflect the actions taken by staff.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure informal complaints raised at care reviews are recorded and followed up?
- 02What changes have been made to ensure accident and incident records accurately describe the action staff took?
- 03How will you support my relative to communicate choices about their care?
- 04How are choking risks, special diets and supervision recorded and checked for each person?
- 05What activities in the community are currently available and how are they matched to each person's preferences?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five areas of the service, and it was the first inspection at this location since registration under the provider in January 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 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 Rubery Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 January 2016.
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 Walsall
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 £1,200 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“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.