CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Salford House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and safe systems, with some records needing more detail.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 26 November 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicines, training and management records.
Inspectors found people were safe and treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood people's needs and preferences. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and people received suitable food, drinks and healthcare.
Some improvements were needed. Two radiators did not have covers and posed a burns risk, although covers were fitted immediately after the visit. Internal mental capacity assessments and best-interests meetings lacked detail. Overall, the home was rated Good in all five areas. This was unchanged from the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors also saw thoughtful, warm interactions.
“There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere in the home and people told us staff were kind and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff understood people's preferences and went beyond routine care to support individual wishes, including helping people stay connected with important interests and relationships.
“Staff were particularly responsive to people's individual wishes and preferences and staff went out of their way to ensure people received personalised care.” from the report
Good safety systems
Risks were assessed and monitored, medicines were handled safely, and staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns and incidents.
“Risks to people's health and wellbeing had been identified, assessed and monitored.” from the report
Good support at the end of life
The report included positive feedback about how the home supported a person's final wishes and worked with health professionals.
“Their professionalism meant she had her last wishes respected.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingInternal capacity assessments and best-interests meetings did not contain enough detail. The provider said additional training would be prioritised.
“However, internal capacity assessments and best interests' meetings lacked detail.” from the report
Uncovered radiators
seriousTwo radiators lacked covers and posed a burns risk. Covers were fitted immediately after the inspection visit.
“However, we found two radiators did not have covers and posed a burns risk.” from the report
Incomplete personal history records
needs fixingMost people had a 'This is Me' document, but plans were needed to complete one for everyone after the inspection.
“Most people had a 'This is Me' document.” from the report
- 01Have all internal mental capacity assessments and best-interests records been reviewed and updated with more detail?
- 02What training did staff receive about mental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions after the inspection?
- 03Have all radiator covers been checked and kept in place since the inspection?
- 04Has every resident now got a completed 'This is Me' document, and how is the information used in daily care?
- 05How are care plans and risk assessments updated when people's needs or abilities change?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home itself. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 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, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some records and notifications needing improvement.
Inspectors visited on 16 May 2017 without warning and returned on 17 May 2017 after announcing the visit. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also reviewed care, medicines, training, nutrition, incident and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives were positive about the care. Inspectors found enough trained staff, detailed care plans, kind support, suitable activities and effective arrangements for food, medicines and health care.
There were some weaknesses in record keeping and reporting. Records did not always show the reasons for complex best-interest decisions. Some serious injury notifications had not been sent to the CQC, and some time-critical medicines did not record when they should be given. The home was still rated Good overall.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were very positive about staff. Inspectors saw staff being patient, friendly and respectful, and supporting people at their own pace.
“During both days of our visit there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staffing had increased since the previous inspection, reducing waiting times for help.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs and preferences. Staff used handovers and their knowledge of individuals to provide consistent support.
“Care plans were detailed and included information about people's needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to maintain friendships, family relationships, hobbies and interests. Activities included crafts, music, films, reminiscence resources and trips out.
“A range of activities were organised by the activities co-ordinator.” from the report
Improved effectiveness
The home had addressed the previous inspection's concerns about staff understanding people's capacity. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“This time, we found improvements had been made and the rating was now Good.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingAlthough staff followed the Mental Capacity Act, records did not always explain complex best-interest decisions, who was involved or why decisions were made.
“However, records of best interest meetings in respect of any complex decisions and the decisions reached were not recorded.” from the report
Serious injury notifications
seriousSome serious injury notifications had not been sent to the CQC. The manager said this was an oversight and promised to send them in future.
“However, we found some serious injury notifications had not been sent to us.” from the report
Medicine timing records
seriousSome time-critical medicines did not show when they should be given. The manager contacted the pharmacist for advice during the inspection.
“Some time critical medicines did not always record when they were to be given.” from the report
Falls monitoring
needs fixingThe manager monitored falls, but the analysis did not always show what action had been taken. The manager agreed to include this information in future analysis.
“However, their analysis did not always show what actions had been taken.” from the report
- 01How do you now record complex best-interest meetings, including who was involved and the reasons for decisions?
- 02How do you make sure serious injuries are reported to the CQC on time?
- 03How are time-critical medicines recorded and checked so staff know when they must be given?
- 04How do you analyse falls and record the action taken to reduce or understand them?
- 05What changes have been made to care plans and dementia care since the new deputy manager started?
This was an inspection of the overall service covering all five CQC questions, with an unannounced visit on 16 May and an announced return visit on 17 May 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 June 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 Salford House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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.