CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Studley Rose Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Recruitment checks, infection control, risk assessments and medicines arrangements were generally effective, although one as-needed medicine lacked a required protocol.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, sought consent and involved health professionals when needed. People received support with food and fluids, but feedback about meals was mixed and one mealtime was delayed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff gave people choices, respected their privacy and dignity, and encouraged independence. People were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and activities and visiting were available. Some care records did not consistently match daily records or staff instructions, and feedback about activities and response times was mixed.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and monitoring existed, but they had not always identified risks or gaps in records. There was no registered manager in post, and some people were unclear about management and resident meetings.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in management checks and no registered manager was in post.
This was the first inspection under this provider. The visit was unannounced and took place on 17 May 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff and managers, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and quality records.
Inspectors rated Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive as Good. They found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, had personalised care and were treated with dignity. Staff had suitable training and people were supported to make choices and use health services.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Some management checks had not found problems with care records, equipment and medicines processes. There were also concerns about delays in staff responding, people not knowing who the manager was, and limited involvement in meetings.
The provider said it had corrected the issues found after the visit and strengthened its audits. CQC said it would return through its re-inspection programme. This was the first inspection, so there was no earlier rating to compare with.
Safe recruitment
The home completed checks to make sure staff were suitable to work with people, including references and DBS checks.
“Recruitment checks were robust, and the manager said when they recruited staff, all security checks were completed to ensure staff were safe to work with people and of suitable character.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included information about people's needs, preferences and routines. More experienced staff understood how people communicated and what mattered to them.
“People's care and support was personalised and tailored to meet their needs.” from the report
Dignity and choice
Staff respected people's wishes, privacy and independence. They asked for consent and supported people to make their own decisions.
“Our observations showed staff supported people, gave people choice and options of what they wanted to do.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received induction, shadowing and mandatory training, including training linked to people's health conditions.
“Staff were provided with training to enable them to carry out their roles effectively.” from the report
Management checks missed risks
seriousDelegated audits and care reviews did not always work effectively. They failed to identify issues involving window restrictors, hot plates, medicines, thickened drinks and fluid records.
“However, we found when some duties were delegated to others for audits or processes that reviewed people's care, these were not always completed or effectively managed.” from the report
Care records were not always consistent
needs fixingSome records did not show the correct support, including the consistency of thickened drinks and catheter fluid outputs. The provider said action had been taken after the inspection.
“Regular reviews took place, but we found in some examples, the review had not identified where daily records and care plans did not always match.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A new manager had been recruited but had not started.
“At the time of our inspection visit there was no registered manager in post.” from the report
Response times and involvement
needs fixingSome people reported delays when they asked for help. Some people were unsure whether resident meetings took place or whether concerns were dealt with quickly.
“Some people living at the home said this meant some delays when care or support was required because staff were not always familiar with their preferences.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now started, and who is responsible for the home until that happens?
- 02How have you checked that care plans, daily records, thickened-drink instructions and catheter fluid records now match?
- 03What checks are now in place for window restrictors, hot plates and as-needed medicines?
- 04How quickly should residents expect staff to respond when they call for help, and how is this monitored?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in meetings and told what action has been taken in response to their feedback?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; there were no previous ratings under this provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 June 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 Studley Rose Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 August 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 Warwickshire
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 £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“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.