CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Strensham Hill Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and reviewed, medicines were given as prescribed, and staff knew how to protect people from abuse. Staff numbers and recruitment checks were also considered suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with food, drink, healthcare and specialist needs. Staff had relevant skills and training, and the home followed the legal requirements around consent and restrictions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind and respectful. They knew people's histories, preferences and communication needs, and promoted privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and relationship needs. People could choose activities and outings, and information and complaints procedures were available in accessible formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and inclusive culture. Managers monitored care and medicines records, listened to relatives and staff, and used feedback and incidents to improve the service.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Strensham Hill Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 December 2019. One inspector spoke with two people, two relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicines and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited and trained staff, safe medicines practice, good support with health and diet, and care that respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
The home supported people with physical or learning disabilities, including autistic spectrum disorders. It was registered for 10 people and eight were living there. Inspectors noted that the home was larger than current best practice guidance, but said the design and location reduced any negative impact.
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and provided care based on their individual preferences, histories and needs.
“People received personalised care from staff that knew them well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff treated people with kindness, protected their dignity and encouraged them to do things for themselves.
“Staff were kind and caring, treated people with respect and promoted their privacy and dignity at all times.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with health professionals and supported people with specialist diets, medical appointments and ongoing health needs.
“The registered manager and staff worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people received specialist support when needed.” from the report
Strong management checks
Managers regularly checked care and medicines records and acted when they found inconsistencies.
“The audits of the service were detailed and comprehensive.” from the report
Home larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for 10 people and was described as larger than current best practice guidance. Inspectors said the building and its setting reduced the effect this had on people.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's communication needs are understood and recorded?
- 02How will you support my relative to make choices and remain as independent as possible?
- 03How do you check that medicines, including creams and as-required medicines, are given safely?
- 04How will you support my relative's particular dietary, health and specialist care needs?
- 05What practical effect does the size of the home have on people's daily lives and privacy?
This inspection looked at the premises and care across all five CQC questions; the previous inspection in 2017 had also rated every area Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 January 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some prescribed creams left unlocked and a need to improve service planning.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 5 May 2017. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, a relative and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported nine people with learning disabilities, some also having physical disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines administration, suitable training and support from health professionals. People were treated kindly, involved in decisions and supported to enjoy activities and keep in touch with others.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection and remained Good overall. Inspectors noted some prescribed creams were left unlocked in bathrooms and said it was unclear how the home had continued striving to improve.
Staffing and safety
There were enough staff to respond promptly and provide support safely. Recruitment checks had also been completed.
“There were enough staff on each shift. Staff responded promptly to meet care needs and intervene when people were at risk of harm.” from the report
Skilled support
Staff had induction, regular training and supervision. They understood people's medical needs and how to support them.
“People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with regular staff. Staff respected privacy, asked permission and promoted independence.
“We saw staff respected people's privacy and took care to ask permission before supporting people with personal care.” from the report
Individual activities
People were supported to choose activities they enjoyed, both at home and in the community. Activities were tailored to each person.
“We saw that activities were varied and individualised to each person.” from the report
Involvement in care
People and those supporting them reviewed care regularly. Staff had guidance about people's communication styles, wishes and preferred names.
“People's care and support was planned in partnership with them.” from the report
Creams not locked away
needs fixingSome prescribed creams were left unlocked in people's bathrooms. Ask what has been changed to prevent this happening.
“Medicines were kept in a suitably safe location although some prescribed creams were left unlocked in people's bathrooms.” from the report
Unclear improvement planning
needs fixingInspectors found the home was safe and consistently good, but could not see clearly how it was continuing to improve. The managers said they would review their improvement plans.
“At this inspection we found that although people received a consistently good service and were safe, it was unclear how the service had continued striving to improve.” from the report
- 01How are prescribed creams stored now, and how do you check that they remain locked when required?
- 02What changes were made to the service improvement plans after this inspection?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when staff are absent?
- 04How are people involved in reviewing and changing their care plans?
- 05How do you make sure activities continue to match each person's interests and communication needs?
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 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 Strensham Hill Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 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.
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.