CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rugby Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitor arrangements, social distancing, PPE, cleaning, testing and safe admissions.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rugby Care Centre was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 31 March 2021. Two inspectors visited to check infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, followed social distancing and shielding rules, supported testing, and admitted people safely.
The home arranged visits at suitable times, cleaned areas between visits, and used separate lounge and activity spaces so people could socialise in small groups. It also used its garden to support safe outdoor time.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five questions.
Managed visiting
Visits were arranged around people's needs and spaced out to reduce the risk of infection. Areas used by visitors were cleaned between visits.
“The service was booking visitors in at a time that suited people and was spaced out to avoid potential infection transmission.” from the report
Small-group socialising
Communal areas were adapted into smaller lounge and activity spaces. This helped people socialise while remaining in small groups.
“This meant people could remain in small bubbles to socialise, eat and watch television to avoid them being socially isolated.” from the report
Outdoor space
The community garden gave people a way to spend time outside while following social distancing guidance.
“The home had a large community garden. This was utilised for people to sit outside and still feel they were part of a community whilst safely following social distancing guidelines.” from the report
Dedicated infection lead
A named role was created to oversee coronavirus-related issues and testing for staff, residents and visitors.
“The service appointed a dedicated lead to deal with all COVID-19 related issues and to oversee all testing of staff, people and visitors.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current arrangements for visiting, and how are visitor areas cleaned between visits?
- 02How are people supported to socialise and take part in activities if infection control measures are needed?
- 03How is testing currently arranged for residents, staff and visitors?
- 04Who currently leads on infection prevention and control issues?
- 05Can you show me the home's latest full inspection report or explain which areas were not covered by this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the service was inspected but not rated, and the other care questions were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 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, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, but some environmental risks and record-keeping needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 March 2020. The inspector spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported by trained staff, received help with food, drink and medicines, and were treated with dignity. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, activities and relationships.
Inspectors found some risks that had not been identified. Hot radiators, damaged wet-room flooring, a missing drain cover and dust in the laundry were dealt with after the inspection. One medicine had not been dated when opened, some meals were delayed, and some best-interest decisions were not recorded clearly. The home took action during or after the visit.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were caring and patient. Inspectors saw staff reassure people and protect their dignity.
“There were caring interactions between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's communication, preferences and changing needs. Care plans gave staff personalised guidance.
“Care plans contained personalised information and gave direction to staff that was specific to each individual.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had an induction, relevant training and support from senior staff. Training included dementia and falls prevention.
“Staff were skilled, competent and suitably trained to meet people's needs effectively.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities suited to their interests, both in the home and in the community. Staff also helped people keep in touch with important relatives.
“People took part in a wide variety of different activities based on their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Open leadership
Staff felt able to raise concerns and suggest improvements. Senior staff worked with health and social care professionals.
“The provider and registered manager were open and honest and worked in partnership with outside agencies.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousSome communal radiators were very hot. The home also had a damaged wet-room floor, a missing drain cover and dust in the laundry. The provider completed improvement works after the visit.
“Radiators in some communal areas were very hot to touch.” from the report
Cleaning standards
seriousMost of the home was clean, but some areas could not be hygienically cleaned because of the damaged floor and missing drain cover. Cleaning schedules and risk assessments were improved after the inspection.
“Most of the home was clean and tidy, however some areas of the home were not clean.” from the report
Meal delays
needs fixingSome people were seated for more than 40 minutes before lunch was served. The provider agreed to monitor meal times more closely.
“Some people were seated in the dining room for over 40 minutes before their lunch was served.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingStaff supported people to make decisions in their best interests, but records did not explain clearly how some decisions had been reached. The recording process was improved during the inspection.
“Decisions were not recorded and it was not clear how decisions had been reached.” from the report
Medicine dating
needs fixingOne medicine had not been dated when opened, as required by current guidance. It was still in date and effective, and the provider corrected this during the inspection.
“One person's medicine had not been dated when opened by staff in line with current guidance.” from the report
- 01What work was completed to make the hot radiators, wet-room floor and missing drain cover safe?
- 02How do you now check cleaning standards in areas that are difficult to access?
- 03How do you monitor the time people wait for meals?
- 04How are best-interest decisions recorded, including the reasons for each decision?
- 05How do you check that medicines are dated when opened and that records are complete?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC areas, including the premises and the care provided; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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.
Every inspection of Rugby Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 April 2015.
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.