CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 58 Featherstone Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2020
SENSE - 58 Featherstone Road is rated Good overall, but inspectors found that management checks and records need improvement.
Inspectors visited on 8 January 2020 without giving notice. They spoke with all four people living at the home, two relatives, staff, managers and a healthcare professional. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records, and looked around the home.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People were supported by staff who knew them well. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness and respect, supported to make choices, helped to stay healthy and encouraged to take part in activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Management checks had missed some problems, including poor fluid records, an unsafe fire door, an unsecured medicine-room key, private handovers taking place in the lounge and missing care-plan information for a recurring condition.
The overall rating stayed Good, as did the four care-related ratings from the previous inspection. The well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The manager took action or agreed to act on the problems during the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Relatives said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance and treating people with dignity.
“The staff are caring. They really stick up for the people too.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's preferences, communication methods and risks. They supported people to make everyday choices and become more independent.
“Staff we spoke with were able to tell us what was important to each person including what they liked and did not like and how they wanted to live.” from the report
Good support with health
People had health action plans, regular health checks and referrals to healthcare professionals when needed. Staff also understood individual dietary and choking needs.
“Records highlighted, and staff confirmed, all people had an annual health care check to monitor their health and well-being.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to go out regularly and use local shops, cafes, nature reserves and other facilities.
“People were supported regularly to take advantage of local amenities.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingAudits and monitoring did not identify several shortfalls that inspectors found. This is why the well-led rating was Requires Improvement.
“Quality assurance systems, including audits and spot checks, had not always been effective in alerting the provider and registered manager that there had been shortfalls in service delivery.” from the report
Fire door fault
seriousThe laundry fire door was not closing properly. Inspectors said this could allow fire and smoke to spread, and the manager said it would be fixed quickly.
“However, the laundry door, a fire door, was not shutting correctly.” from the report
Fluid records were incomplete
needs fixingOn some days, records showed very little fluid intake for people. The manager instructed senior staff to check totals at the end of each day.
“However, for some days the records of fluid consumed by each person was minimal.” from the report
Confidentiality during handovers
needs fixingStaff handovers containing private information took place in the lounge while people were present. The manager agreed that future handovers should happen in the office.
“Staff handover, that cascaded private information about individual people, was carried out in the lounge where people were sitting.” from the report
Some care-plan information was missing
needs fixingThere were no care plans explaining the early signs and symptoms of a recurring condition. This could make consistent and timely action more difficult.
“There were no care plans in place for people who were prone to a recurrent condition.” from the report
Medicine-room key was not secure
needs fixingThe key to the medicine room was not safely secured at the time of inspection. The manager agreed to find a safer arrangement.
“The key to the medicine room was not secure.” from the report
- 01Has the laundry fire door been repaired, and how is its condition now checked?
- 02How do you now record and review each person's daily fluid intake?
- 03Where are staff handovers held now, and how do you protect people's privacy during them?
- 04Have care plans been added for people with recurring conditions, including early warning signs and required action?
- 05How is the medicine-room key secured, and how do managers check this?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions and both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
SENSE - 58 Featherstone Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and guidance needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 June 2017. One inspector visited the home, met all four residents, observed care, spoke with the registered manager and five staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, incident and quality records. Two relatives also gave their views.
The home supported four people with sensory impairments. Inspectors found that people were kept safe, medicines were given as prescribed, and staff understood people's individual needs. Staff supported choice, healthcare, activities, relationships and communication.
The inspection found some areas to improve. These included reviewing best-interest decisions regularly, adding detail to one emergency healthcare guideline, ensuring one person's drinks were prepared safely, and keeping staff handovers confidential.
All five areas were rated Good. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in August 2014, so this report says the service remained Good.
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Records sampled showed that medicines had been given safely and as prescribed.
“People were supported to receive their medicines safely.” from the report
Staff understood residents
The established staff team understood people's sensory, behavioural and communication needs. Care was planned with relatives and staff who knew people well.
“Care plans had been developed with relatives and staff members who knew people well.” from the report
Choice and dignity
Staff supported people to make daily choices, use communication aids and retain independence, privacy and dignity.
“Individual communication aids were used to enhance the choice making process and we saw these aids been used consistently in practice.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported with activities they enjoyed and with maintaining contact with relatives, including when families lived far away.
“A range of activities which reflected people's preferences were available to people living at the home.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular checks, audits, questionnaires and development plans to monitor quality and identify improvements.
“The quality and safety of the service was monitored through regular checks that were undertaken around key parts of the service.” from the report
Best-interest reviews
needs fixingThe registered manager agreed to consider how often best-interest decisions were reviewed, so that decisions continued to reflect people's interests.
“The registered manager agreed to consider the frequency of how often best interest decisions were reviewed to ensure decisions made continued to be in the person's best interests.” from the report
Emergency healthcare guidance
needs fixingOne emergency healthcare guideline needed more detail so staff would follow a consistent approach.
“We noted one guideline required further detail to ensure a consistent approach was taken.” from the report
Confidential handovers
minorInformation was not always passed between staff teams confidentially. The registered manager said this would not happen again.
“Whilst these systems were effective we noted that information was not handed over in a confidential manner.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure the person's fluids are prepared exactly as recommended by the healthcare professional?
- 02How often are best-interest decisions reviewed, and how are relatives involved in those reviews?
- 03What extra detail has been added to the emergency healthcare guideline?
- 04How do you make sure staff handovers contain private information and are carried out confidentially?
- 05How do you check whether residents are satisfied with their care when they cannot make an official complaint?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service covering all five questions; inspectors observed care because none of the residents could speak with them, and the previous August 2014 Good ratings were reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 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 58 Featherstone Road
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 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 Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“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.