CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tandy Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines practices and weaknesses in infection control and management checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 October 2023. Two inspectors and a pharmacist specialist advisor visited the home. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and management audits.
The main concerns were about medicines. The medicines trolley was left unlocked, some medicines were given late, records were not always accurate, and medicines were sometimes stored at the wrong temperature. Staff did not always follow safe hand-cleaning practices, and a tablet was given after falling on the floor.
Inspectors also found that some care plans were not always followed and that shared wheelchairs were not cleaned promptly when soiled. The home had enough staff, assessed people's needs, supported people to make choices, and generally provided kind care.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Effective remained Good. Caring and Responsive were not rated in this inspection.
Kind relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and compassion.
“A relative told us, "Staff are very friendly, kind and take time to have conversations".” from the report
Good understanding of needs
Staff understood people's health, communication, dietary and mobility needs. Care plans and risk assessments generally recorded these needs clearly.
“People's physical, mental and social needs were assessed and documented in their care plans and risk assessments.” from the report
Choice and consent
The home worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Staff sought consent and supported people to make day-to-day choices.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Staffing and outside support
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks had been completed. The home also worked with healthcare professionals when people needed further support.
“Records showed, and our observations confirmed, that there were adequate staff available to support people.” from the report
Medicines were not consistently safe
seriousThe medicines trolley was left unlocked, some medicines were late, and records did not always show accurately what had been given. These problems created a risk of missed, duplicate or harmful doses.
“Records were not always accurate meaning there was a risk people could have duplicate or missed medicines.” from the report
Shared equipment was not always clean
needs fixingSome shared wheelchairs were soiled from previous use and were not cleaned immediately between users. Inspectors were not assured that infection prevention practices were consistently followed.
“We saw wheelchairs were shared between people living at the home and that some wheelchairs were soiled from previous use.” from the report
Checks did not lead to reliable improvement
needs fixingThe home had audits and action plans, but management checks had not identified or corrected the medicines problems. Some lessons from errors were not turned into stronger monitoring.
“However, some identified concerns such as with medication were not effectively addressed.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to stop the medicines trolley being left unlocked?
- 02How are staff now checked as competent to give medicines safely and at the correct time?
- 03How do you check medicine fridge temperatures, and what happens when they are outside the acceptable range?
- 04How are wheelchairs and other shared equipment cleaned between people?
- 05How do your audits now show that problems with medicines are identified, acted on and kept under review?
This inspection focused on concerns about medicines and also considered infection prevention and control; Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated, while Caring and Responsive were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 2024 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, February 2021
Tandy Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good Covid-19 infection-control arrangements.
Inspectors made an announced visit on 2 February 2021. This was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic, focusing on infection prevention and control.
The inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks. They also found an up-to-date infection-control policy.
The inspection did not give an overall quality rating. Safe was inspected but not rated, and the report does not assess areas such as caring, effectiveness, responsiveness or leadership.
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened for Covid-19 symptoms and required to take a lateral flow test before visiting.
“On their arrival at the home, visitors were screened for symptoms of Covid-19 and were required to completed a lateral flow test to ensure their visit could take place safely in line with current guidance.” from the report
Safer visits
A visiting pod with a glass screen allowed people to see important others while reducing cross-infection risks.
“A 'visiting pod' partitioned by a glass screen was in use. Use of the area meant visits took place safely which reduced the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Cleaning and monitoring
Cleaning schedules had been increased, and staff compliance with infection-control measures was monitored.
“Cleaning schedules had been increased to monitor cleanliness of the environment. Staff compliance with the provider's infection control policy was monitored by the infection prevention lead and the registered manager.” from the report
Keeping people connected
People were supported to stay in touch with family and others through video calls, social media and photographs.
“People were supported to maintain contact with others who were important to them in a variety of ways including video calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and tested before entering the home?
- 02Is the visiting pod still available, and what other ways can relatives keep in contact?
- 03How do you currently manage Covid-19 testing, protective equipment and possible outbreaks?
- 04What cleaning checks are carried out, and how is staff compliance monitored?
- 05What were the latest ratings for caring, effectiveness, responsiveness and leadership, which this inspection did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; Safe was inspected but not rated, and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 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.
Every inspection of Tandy Court
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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.