CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tiled House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including visitors, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements during the targeted visit.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 05 March 2021. It looked only at how the home was preventing and controlling COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors found good practice. The home had enough protective equipment, regular testing, zoning and social distancing arrangements. Staff followed cleaning schedules, and the infection control policy was kept up to date.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a standard rating for Safe.
Safe visiting arrangements
A visiting pod was due to be introduced. Relatives visiting very unwell people had to use full protective equipment and take a COVID-19 test.
“A pre-booked pod visiting system was to be implemented.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home followed infection prevention guidance when new people were admitted, helping to reduce the risk of infection entering the home.
“Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) guidance had been followed when new people had been admitted to the home.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
There was enough protective equipment and plenty of test kits. Staff were tested three times a week and people every 28 days.
“There was enough Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) available in stock and throughout the home.” from the report
Clean premises
The home had changed communal areas to support social distancing. Inspectors found it adequately clean and saw staff following cleaning schedules.
“The premises were adequately clean. Appropriate cleaning products were used and staff followed the provider's cleaning schedules.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The manager showed a good understanding of dealing with infectious outbreaks, and the infection control policy was updated when government guidance changed.
“The registered manager had a good insight into dealing with any infectious outbreaks.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Is the pre-booked visiting pod now in use, and what arrangements are available for people who are very unwell?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested now, and what happens when someone tests positive?
- 03How are new admissions kept separate or monitored to reduce the risk of infection entering the home?
- 04How are zoning, social distancing and cleaning arrangements being maintained in communal areas?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last updated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 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.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Tiled House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with clear improvement from the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was a planned inspection because of the previous rating. Inspectors visited on 1 and 2 October 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked records and systems.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff were kind and knowledgeable, and their care supported rehabilitation and independence. Staffing levels had been reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and the home worked with nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists.
The report also found some less serious issues. Care plans were not always fully consistent, the upstairs décor looked tired, and the short stays made it harder to provide activities that matched everyone's interests. The home had improved since the previous inspection, when the overall rating was Requires Improvement.
Enough staff
People and relatives said staff were available and did not usually leave people waiting for help. Staffing was reviewed when people's needs changed.
“I feel very reassured because there are staff around day and night and I never have to wait very long for help.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff protecting people's privacy and dignity. Staff knew people's preferences and encouraged independence as part of rehabilitation.
“The staff have a good sense of humour and are very motivational. They give me praise and encouragement which is really helpful.” from the report
Good rehabilitation support
The home worked with nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. People said this helped them work towards returning home and becoming more independent.
“I think having the physiotherapist onsite to advise makes a big difference. Staff know our limitations, and this is well communicated so that we have realistic expectations.” from the report
Improved oversight
Quality checks had been strengthened since the previous inspection. This included better monitoring of falls, medicines, the environment and skin care.
“There were now more robust reviews of the quality of the service.” from the report
Care plan inconsistencies
needs fixingMost care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, but inspectors found some inconsistencies. Staff could generally explain how they provided the right care.
“People's care plans on most occasions reflected people's needs and preferences although there were some inconsistencies found.” from the report
Tired upstairs décor
minorThe upstairs area needed redecoration. Management said refurbishment and bathroom improvements were planned, but the report does not confirm that these had been completed.
“There had been some redecoration of the ground floor areas recently, but the upstairs area would benefit from some redecoration as the décor looked tired.” from the report
Limited activity choices
minorActivities were available, but the short-term nature of stays made it harder to find out what people liked. One person also said there was not much time for activities between therapy, meals and visits.
“They do have an art class – but I am not arty, and sometimes some exercises but with visiting and eating there is not much time left.” from the report
- 01How do you check that each person's care plan is complete, consistent and updated when their needs change?
- 02What refurbishment has been completed upstairs, and when will the remaining décor and bathroom work be finished?
- 03How do you find out what activities a person enjoys during a short rehabilitation stay?
- 04How are changes in a person's health shared between home staff and the nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists based in the building?
- 05What are the person's rehabilitation goals, and how will you keep their family informed about progress?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; it found improvements from the previous inspection, whose report was published on 02 October 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 November 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.
Every inspection of Tiled House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 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 Dudley
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 £1,230 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.