Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at St Alban's

Goodpublished 4 November 2021, 4 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, detailed risk assessments and regular safety checks. They also found some PPE and visiting-policy failures.
Effective?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
Caring?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
Responsive?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Management checks did not identify PPE compliance problems or one staff member's overdue training. There was also a delay in notifying CQC about an authorised deprivation of liberty, although action was taken during the inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2021

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, but the home was not always well-led and PPE checks needed improvement.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 September 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about medicines, staffing, records and fire safety. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional, and checked care records, staff records, medicines, premises and quality checks.

The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, detailed risk assessments and suitable checks of the premises. People and relatives said people felt safe. Infection control was generally good, but staff did not always wear face masks correctly and one visitor did not follow the visiting policy.

Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, down from Good at the last inspection. The home's checks had not identified the PPE problems or that one new staff member's training was overdue. There had also been a delay in notifying CQC about an authorised deprivation of liberty. The manager acted during the inspection and put action plans in place.

The overall rating stayed Good. The other three key questions were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.

What inspectors praised
  • Detailed risk planning

    Care plans and risk assessments gave staff clear guidance about people's needs, including how to respond when someone became distressed.

    “People had detailed care plans and risk assessments which included guidance to support staff to deliver safe care and reduce risks.” from the report
  • Safe medicines systems

    Medicines records were accurate, staff had relevant training and there were clear instructions for medicines given when needed.

    “The provider had effective systems in place to assist staff to safely manage medicines.” from the report
  • Enough staff

    Inspectors, staff and relatives said staffing levels were enough to meet people's needs and keep them safe.

    “Staff told us there were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep people safe.” from the report
  • People involved in care

    People were supported to make choices about their care, and relatives were involved in reviews and care planning.

    “People were supported to make decisions about their care.” from the report
  • Open response to feedback

    The manager listened to inspectors and took action during the inspection when concerns were raised.

    “The registered manager was open and transparent during the inspection and demonstrated a willingness to listen and improve.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • PPE was not always used correctly

    needs fixing

    Some staff did not wear face masks in line with the guidance, and staff were not clear about putting on and removing PPE. One visitor also did not follow the home's visiting policy.

    “Staff were wearing PPE but there were occasions when some staff were not wearing their face masks in line with current government guidance” from the report
  • Management checks missed problems

    needs fixing

    The home's governance systems did not identify the PPE concerns or one staff member's training needs before the inspection.

    “Governance systems were in place however, they had been ineffective in identifying concerns around PPE compliance, and one staff members' training needs.” from the report
  • Training was not completed promptly

    needs fixing

    One new staff member had not completed required training on time. The manager completed the training and introduced an action plan.

    “Oversight of staff training had been ineffective to ensure a new staff member completed their required training in a timely way.” from the report
  • Employment history gap not fully checked

    minor

    Recruitment checks were in place, but the home had not fully explored gaps in one staff member's employment history.

    “However, for one staff member the registered manager had not explored fully the gaps in their employment history.” from the report
  • Notification to CQC was delayed

    needs fixing

    The home usually notified CQC about incidents, but there was a delay in reporting an authorised deprivation of liberty.

    “There was a delay in informing us when a person had an authorised deprivation of liberty in place.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What checks have you introduced to make sure staff wear and remove PPE correctly?
  2. 02How do you now track and follow up staff training, especially for new starters?
  3. 03How will you make sure employment history gaps are fully explored during recruitment?
  4. 04What system is now used to ensure required notifications are sent to CQC without delay?
  5. 05How are prescribed creams recorded so it is clear where they have been administered?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three key-question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 November 2021 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, April 2019

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor records and maintenance issues to follow up.

This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 7 March 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff, relatives and the manager, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and service records.

The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, received their medicines correctly, and had enough food, drink and health support.

Staff were described as kind, patient and understanding. They knew people well, respected their privacy and supported choice, independence, activities and relationships.

Inspectors found two areas needing attention. A mental capacity assessment had not been recorded, although the manager said one had been completed. The manager also planned to discuss people's end of life wishes when care plans were reviewed.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind relationships

    Inspectors saw warm and compassionate interactions. Staff knew people well and communicated in ways they could understand.

    “People received care from staff who were kind and caring and knew them well.” from the report
  • Choice and independence

    People were supported to make everyday choices and take part in household tasks, activities and personal care as far as they could.

    “The focus of the service had moved to encouraging staff to do more 'with people', rather than 'for them.'” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans included people's routines, communication methods, preferences and goals. Staff used this information to shape support.

    “Care plans were very person centred and contained information about what was important to people and what goals they would like to achieve.” from the report
  • Safe medicines practice

    Staff were trained and checked as competent. Medicines were stored safely, records were audited and inspectors observed medicines being given safely.

    “We observed medicines being given safely on the day of inspection.” from the report
  • Good management oversight

    The manager used quality checks, staff feedback and an action plan to monitor the home and identify improvements.

    “The registered manager had an action plan which showed where further improvements were needed, when by, and who was responsible for them.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Capacity assessment record

    needs fixing

    A best-interests decision had been recorded, but the related mental capacity assessment had not been recorded. After the inspection, the manager said a recording process had been introduced.

    “They had not recorded a mental capacity assessment although the registered manager told us one had been completed.” from the report
  • End of life wishes

    minor

    No one needed end of life care during the inspection, but people's wishes had not yet been discussed. The manager planned to address this at the next care plan review.

    “The registered manager told us they had identified that people's end of life wishes had not been discussed and they planned to address this when people's care plans were next reviewed.” from the report
  • Kitchen repairs

    minor

    Inspectors noted missing drawer fronts in the kitchen. Staff said repairs were carried out regularly and had put pans in place because one person pulled the drawer fronts off.

    “We noted the kitchen needed repair as there were drawer fronts missing.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now record mental capacity assessments and make sure they support any best-interests decisions?
  2. 02Have each person's end of life wishes now been discussed and added to their care plan?
  3. 03What repairs are currently needed in the kitchen, and how are people kept safe while repairs are arranged?
  4. 04How do you make sure staff follow each person's communication guidance, especially when they do not communicate verbally?
  5. 05How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and asked for feedback about the service?

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the premises and care provided both examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of St Alban's

4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. November 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at St Alban's →

  2. April 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at St Alban's →

  3. August 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. June 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. October 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. July 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. October 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 October 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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!”
Orkadi L., about Fernanda L.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
Brian G., about Chris M.
See live-in carers near BirminghamProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.