CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Friendly Inn
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Staffing was enough during the visit, but some staff said shifts could be short when people were off sick or did not attend.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs, consent, training, food and access to health professionals were managed well. Inspectors noted that further information was being added to instructions for some as-needed medicines, and one person’s meal needed attention.
- Caring?
- Good
- People spoke positively about staff and inspectors saw kindness, respect for privacy and support for independence. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff knew people’s preferences. Activities, contact with relatives and information in accessible formats were provided, although more information was still being added to some care plans.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management oversight and quality checks were good, and complaints and incidents were reviewed for learning. Staff gave mixed feedback about leadership and the home was taking action to improve staff morale.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staffing and some care-record improvements still being worked on.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. It was an unannounced, planned visit. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, liked the staff and received kind, personalised care. Inspectors found safe medicines systems, a clean environment, suitable activities and good access to health professionals.
There were some issues still being addressed. Staff gave mixed views about whether there were always enough workers. More detail was being added to some as-needed medicine instructions and care plans. The home was also working to improve staff morale and address a problem with one person’s meal.
People felt safe
Risks were identified and managed. The management team reviewed accidents, incidents and complaints to reduce the chance of problems happening again.
“The management team demonstrated a proactive approach to risk reduction.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke warmly about staff. Inspectors saw people being treated with kindness, dignity and respect, with their independence encouraged.
“People without exception spoke positively about the staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people’s likes, dislikes and important routines. Care records included life histories and information to help staff provide individual care.
“Care records contained detailed information to help staff meet people's needs including their life histories and things that were important to them.” from the report
Good management checks
The home used audits and other checks to find areas needing improvement. The provider also visited regularly and worked with health professionals.
“Good governance was embedded. Effective quality assurance systems were used to identify and address any areas that fell below the provider's expectation.” from the report
Staffing cover
needs fixingPeople had enough staff during the inspection, but staff views were mixed about staffing levels. The home was recruiting new staff and said this was a main priority.
“No, not always we do run a carer down at times due to sickness or someone not turning up.” from the report
As-needed medicine instructions
needs fixingSome instructions for medicines given only when needed were still being expanded. This was to make clear when and how staff should give them.
“Further information was being added at the time of our visit to protocols for those medicines to inform staff how and when those medicines should be given.” from the report
Meal presentation
minorInspectors saw one person’s meal sliding off the edge of the plate while they tried to eat. The manager said this would be addressed.
“However, we observed one person's meal was sliding off the edge of their plate as they attempted to eat it.” from the report
Staff morale
minorStaff gave mixed feedback about leadership and morale. The management team had started taking action, including staff welfare meetings, with further action planned.
“We received mixed feedback about the leadership of the service from staff and we were aware prior to our visit work was ongoing to improve staff morale.” from the report
- 01How do you cover shifts when staff are off sick or do not attend?
- 02Have the instructions for all as-needed medicines now been completed and reviewed?
- 03What changes were made after the inspection’s concern about one person’s meal sliding off the plate?
- 04What actions have you taken to improve staff morale, and how do you check whether they have worked?
- 05Have all care plans been updated so people can understand the information in them?
This was the first planned, unannounced inspection of the newly registered home and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 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 The Friendly Inn
7 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 February 2020.
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 Solihull
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 9 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.