CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Scholars Mews Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Inadequate; inspectors found serious risks to safety, poor care, and weak management at Scholars Mews Care Home.
Inspectors visited Scholars Mews Care Home over several days in October 2023 to check the quality and safety of care. They spoke with residents, relatives, staff, and healthcare professionals, and reviewed records and the environment.
They found many serious problems. People were not kept safe from harm or abuse. Staff did not always report or investigate injuries or concerns properly. Medicines were not managed safely, and some care plans lacked important details.
Staffing levels and skills were not enough to meet people's needs. Some staff did not treat people with respect or kindness. People were often left alone and encouraged to stay in their rooms, with little meaningful activity or support.
The home had no registered manager at the time, and leadership was unstable. The provider's checks and audits failed to spot these problems. The home is now in special measures, meaning it will be closely monitored and re-inspected soon.
Immediate actions taken
The provider took some quick steps to improve safety, such as updating medicine protocols and providing crash mats.
“In response to our findings, the provider took some immediate actions to keep people safe.” from the report
Healthcare involvement
GPs regularly reviewed people's health and the home worked with district nurses for end-of-life care.
“People's health needs were regularly reviewed by the GP who completed a weekly ward round at the home.” from the report
Relatives can visit anytime
The home allowed friends and family to visit whenever they wanted.
“Relatives and friends could visit whenever they wanted.” from the report
Poor safeguarding and injury management
seriousStaff did not always report or investigate abuse or injuries properly, putting people at risk.
“Staff did not always report allegations of abuse in a timely way which put people at potential risk of further harm.” from the report
Insufficient and unskilled staff
seriousThere were not enough trained staff on duty, leading to many unwitnessed falls and delayed responses to call bells.
“Staffing is the biggest problem here. It is awful. We just cannot provide the care we want to people.” from the report
Lack of respect and dignity
seriousSome staff treated people without kindness or respect, including entering rooms without knocking and using a demanding tone.
“One staff member entered a person's bedroom and tried to wake them up using a demanding tone which was not consistent with high quality and compassionate care.” from the report
Poor personalised care and activities
needs fixingPeople were often left in their rooms with little support or meaningful activities, which affected their wellbeing.
“There was a culture where staff encouraged people to stay in their bedrooms.” from the report
Weak leadership and governance
seriousManagement was unstable and failed to identify or address serious problems in care and safety.
“The provider's systems and processes for monitoring the quality of the service were not effective.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made since the inspection to improve safety and staffing levels?
- 02How does the home ensure staff treat residents with respect and dignity?
- 03What support is in place for people with complex health or mental health needs?
- 04How does the home involve residents and families in decisions about care?
- 05What activities and social support are provided to residents daily?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all key areas of care and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 January 2024 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, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a minor gap in instructions for applying some creams.
This was an unannounced, fully comprehensive inspection on 9 January 2018. Inspectors reviewed records, observed care and lunchtime support, and spoke with people, relatives, visitors, care staff, support staff and managers.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, suitable training, respectful care, personalised support and systems for checking quality.
There was one minor medicines shortfall. Instructions for some prescribed creams only said 'to apply as directed', so staff did not always have enough information to confirm they were applying them as prescribed. No regulations were recorded as breached.
Enough staff
People and relatives said there were enough staff. Inspectors saw staff respond quickly to an alarm and support people without rushing them.
“People told us, and we could see for ourselves, that there were enough staff to support people safely and to spend time talking with people about subjects that interested them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as kind, caring and polite. Inspectors saw people being involved in decisions and supported to remain independent.
“People told us staff were caring, kind and polite.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, interests, communication needs and life histories. Staff used this information to support people as individuals.
“People's care plans included a brief life history, which included information about the person's work and home life, their important relationships and any cultural or religious beliefs and traditions.” from the report
Good end of life planning
Care plans recorded people's future wishes, including where they wanted to be cared for and who they wanted with them.
“People's care plans included their future wishes for end of life care, in the event they became unable to express themselves or state their preferences.” from the report
Open management
Managers encouraged feedback and learning from incidents. People, relatives and staff had opportunities to suggest improvements.
“The registered manager promoted an open and transparent culture where accidents were learned from and good practice was celebrated.” from the report
Cream instructions
minorFor some prescribed creams, records only said 'to apply as directed'. Staff needed clearer information to confirm the creams were being applied in line with prescriptions.
“Care staff needed further information to assure themselves they were applying the cream in accordance with people's prescriptions.” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to make instructions for applying prescribed creams clear and complete?
- 02How are medicines records checked to make sure creams and other medicines are given as prescribed?
- 03How will you assess and review my relative's risks, care needs and preferences after they move in?
- 04How will my relative be supported to take part in activities, maintain relationships and choose how to spend their day?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how will the home tell us what action has been taken?
This was an unannounced, fully comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 2018 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 Scholars Mews Care Home
2 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- January 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 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 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.