CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at School House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, staffing, medicines, infection control and visiting arrangements were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, open culture, clear management systems and regular checks on care quality. People, relatives and staff were involved in improving the home.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and positive leadership, although a registered manager was not yet in post.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 30 November 2023. Inspectors reviewed safety and leadership. They spoke with one person, two relatives, four staff members and managers. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, quality checks and four recruitment files.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were managed, staffing was sufficient, medicines were handled safely and infection control procedures were followed.
Inspectors found a positive and open culture. People and relatives were involved in care and activities, and the provider used checks and feedback to improve the service. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in December 2018.
Managing risks
Risks were assessed with people and their relatives. Staff supported people to take part in activities they enjoyed while reducing known triggers.
“Safety risks were assessed and managed in a way that enabled people to participate in the activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Safe staffing
The home had enough suitably skilled staff, adjusted staffing when needed and completed recruitment checks.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff and the provider operated safe recruitment processes.” from the report
Positive relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. The home supported people to take part in activities at home and in the community.
“There was a positive and open culture at the service.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Managers and senior staff used audits, care record reviews and feedback to monitor care and make improvements.
“The provider had a clear management structure that monitored the quality of care to drive improvements in service delivery.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no registered manager in post at the inspection. A new manager had started and was in the process of registering with the CQC.
“At the time of our inspection a registered manager was not in post.” from the report
- 01What is the current progress of the new manager's registration with the CQC?
- 02How will you keep staffing levels matched to each person's changing needs?
- 03How are risks and known triggers reviewed with each person and their relatives?
- 04How do you check that medicines, including PRN medicines, are given and recorded safely?
- 05How are relatives' suggestions and feedback used to improve the home?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other areas were not assessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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, December 2018
School House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records needing improvement.
The announced inspection took place on 22 November 2018. One inspector spoke with a person living at the home, managers and care staff. The inspector observed care and checked medicines, care plans and management records. Relatives were also contacted afterwards.
The home supported two people with learning disabilities and autism, although it could accommodate three. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, safe medicines practices, good hygiene and suitable support for people's health, choices and independence.
People were treated with kindness and respect. They helped shape their care, menus and activities, and were supported to use the community. The home had systems for handling concerns and checking quality, although some records and procedures needed updating.
All five CQC areas were rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection in February 2016, and inspectors found no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Personalised care
People were closely involved in designing and reviewing their care. Care plans included their preferences and what a good or bad day looked like for them.
“People were fully involved in the design and review of their care.” from the report
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to take part in activities and live active lives in the wider community, including using public transport and attending school where relevant.
“People were supported to access a range of opportunities that enabled them to live as full and active a life as they wished and to engage with the wider community.” from the report
Supportive leadership
Staff said they felt supported, listened to and able to raise concerns. Managers used audits and worked with other organisations to improve care.
“Staff told us they worked together effectively as a team and we saw this during the inspection and reflected in the care people received.” from the report
Risk assessment detail
needs fixingOne risk assessment needed improvement. Inspectors said this had not harmed the person because staff knew how to manage the risk.
“We identified the risk assessment for one particular area of risk needed improvement but this had not had a negative impact on the person as staff were aware how the risk was managed.” from the report
Medicines records
minorMedicines were administered safely, but creams should have been dated when opened so old stock could be replaced.
“We brought to the attention of the registered manager that creams should be dated on opening to ensure they were discarded and replaced with new stock when needed.” from the report
Complaints procedure
minorThe home had a process for responding to concerns, but the written complaints procedure available at the home was out of date.
“We brought to the attention of the registered manager that the complaints procedure available in the home was not up to date.” from the report
Window safety records
minorThe window restrictors inspectors saw were in good order, but records showing that window safety audits had been completed were lacking.
“Whilst the window restrictors we viewed were in good order we identified a lack of documentation regarding window safety audits.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the risk assessment that inspectors said needed improvement?
- 02How do you now record when creams are opened and when they must be replaced?
- 03Has the complaints procedure been updated, and how would my relative or family raise a concern?
- 04How are window safety checks carried out and recorded now?
- 05How would you involve my relative in their care plan, weekly activities and community opportunities?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the premises; two people were living at the home at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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 School House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
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.