CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Shire Oak House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- A person missed prescribed medicines for one day because there was not enough stock and staff did not follow up the prescription. Risk assessments, medicine storage, infection control and staffing levels were otherwise generally satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had received mandatory training and people were supported with food, healthcare and decisions about their care. The building was not yet fully dementia friendly.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and supportive. Staff promoted dignity, independence and involvement in daily choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was generally personalised and people and relatives were involved in reviews. Activities, family contact, communication support and complaints arrangements were available.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management had useful systems for care plan audits, incidents and staff training, but systems for medicines and recruitment checks were not effective enough. Regular staff and residents' meetings did not always take place.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines, recruitment checks and management systems were not always reliable.
This was the first inspection under the current provider. It was unannounced and took place on 21 February 2022 and 28 February 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional. They also checked care plans, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated with kindness and respect. Care was personalised, activities were available, and people and relatives were involved in care reviews. Staff supported people to make choices and worked with other professionals.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. One person missed prescribed medicines for a day because there was not enough stock and staff did not follow up the prescription. One staff file had no references, and two files did not explain gaps in employment history. The home also lacked effective systems to prevent these problems.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them with dignity and respect. Inspectors also saw caring interactions.
“People told us staff were kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect and we observed some examples of staff working in a caring way.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in care planning and reviews where possible. Staff adapted communication and supported people to make choices.
“People received person centred care and there were enough activities available for people to enjoy.” from the report
Good infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, visits, protective equipment and COVID-19 vaccination requirements effectively.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Daily meetings were used to share information about accidents, incidents and people's changing needs.
“This meeting discussed accidents, incidents and people's needs over the last day.” from the report
Missed prescribed medicines
seriousOne person did not receive their prescribed medicines for a day because the home did not have enough stock and staff did not chase the prescription. Inspectors said this could risk the person's health.
“Missing medication could pose a risk to people's health.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
needs fixingOne staff member had no references on file. Two staff records did not explain gaps in employment history or show that the risks had been considered.
“One staff member did not have any references on file.” from the report
Not fully dementia friendly
needs fixingThe building used pale and light colours without enough contrast to help people distinguish surfaces. The provider said this was planned for a later refurbishment phase.
“The building was not dementia friendly. We saw pale and light colours used across the home on walls and flooring, which is not deemed suitable for people with dementia.” from the report
Meetings were not always regular
minorResidents' house meetings and staff meetings did not always happen regularly, although people and staff received information in other ways.
“Residents house meetings did not always happen regularly.” from the report
- 01What system is now used to make sure people moving into step-down beds have enough prescribed medicine?
- 02Who checks that prescriptions are chased promptly when medicines have not arrived?
- 03Have all staff files now been checked for references and explanations of employment gaps?
- 04What progress has been made with making the building more dementia friendly, including clearer colour contrast and signage?
- 05How often are residents' house meetings and staff meetings now held, and how are actions recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control and COVID-19 vaccination requirements; it was the first inspection under the current provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 2022 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 Shire Oak House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 June 2021.
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.