CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Trescott Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received their medicines as prescribed, risks were assessed and staff knew how to respond to concerns. Staff recruitment checks and infection control arrangements were also found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and understood complex disabilities and communication needs. People received suitable food, healthcare support and help to make decisions in line with the law.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported them to make choices. Communication tools and knowledge of people's body language helped people express their wishes.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and plans were reviewed. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication needs and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Relatives, professionals and staff said the home was well managed. Audits and feedback were used to improve care, although the health and safety audit process was still being reviewed.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some planned improvements to audits and end-of-life support.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 September 2019. One inspector met everyone living at the home, spoke with staff, a visiting professional, relatives and an advocate, and checked care, medicines, complaints, safety, quality and recruitment records.
The home supported five people with complex disabilities, although it could support up to seven. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who understood their needs, communication and preferences.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had improved its medicines systems since the previous inspection, when Safe was rated Requires Improvement. The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection.
Improved medicines safety
The home had improved its medicines systems since the previous inspection. Inspectors found that medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely.
“Systems used for the management of medicines had been improved since the last inspection and were safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff understood people's individual communication styles and supported their dignity, independence and choices.
“People were supported by a caring staff team who respected people's diverse needs and individual preferences.” from the report
Personalised activities and communication
People were supported to follow their interests, keep relationships and communicate in ways suited to them.
“People had individual communication passports which were used to support their communication when away from their home.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with relatives and health professionals to understand people's needs and support their healthcare.
“The registered manager and staff worked in partnership with a range of other professionals to meet the needs of people living at the home.” from the report
Health and safety audits
minorThe manager said the health and safety audit process needed improvement and was being reviewed to make it more streamlined.
“The registered manager told us they wanted to make improvements to the audit processes for health and safety matters and was in the process of reviewing how this system could be streamlined.” from the report
End-of-life family support
minorInformation about people's end-of-life wishes was recorded, but the manager was still looking to improve the emotional and practical support offered to families.
“The registered manager told us they were looking to improve the support they offered to families and the end of people's lives.” from the report
- 01How are you improving the health and safety audit process?
- 02What emotional and practical support can families expect when end-of-life care is needed?
- 03How will you communicate changes in my relative's care plan to us?
- 04How will you support my relative's preferred communication method and daily routines?
- 05How do you check that medicines, including medicines given with food, are being given safely?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the home environment; the previous overall rating was Good, published on 24 December 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but safe medicines and record keeping required improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 03 November 2016. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, staff files, medicines, risk records and quality checks.
People generally felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's needs, supported activities and outings, and there were enough staff. However, medicines records were not always complete, some staff did not follow communication systems, and some risk and incident records did not show what action had been taken.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, so the overall rating should be read alongside the specific concerns about medicines, communication and records.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive interactions between staff and people. People were treated with dignity and respect, and staff supported independence.
“People and staff had developed good relationships and we observed several positive interactions between them during our visit.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, including outings, social events and community activities.
“People had been supported to go on day trips and events of interest to them in the community, including trips to the theatre, the pub and football matches.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and support activities. Recruitment checks were carried out.
“We observed that there were enough staff to meet people's needs and take part in activities or outings with them.” from the report
Support for choice
People were involved in decisions about their care, meals, activities and the home. Staff supported people to express their wishes.
“People were supported to make their own choices and decisions at the home throughout the day, for example, when choosing their meals and activities to do at the home.” from the report
Medicines records and guidance
seriousRecords did not always show that medicines and prescribed creams had been given safely. Medicines audits missed some of these problems, and guidance was not always complete or available in care plans.
“We found however that medicines records were not always maintained to reflect that people had taken their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Communication about health needs
seriousSome staff did not read the communication book as required. This led to one person being supported to receive a second dose of the same vaccine, creating a risk of harm.
“Other staff members who had not read this information as required had subsequently supported this person to receive a second shot of this same vaccine, which put this person at risk of harm.” from the report
Risk and incident records
needs fixingStaff took action in practice, but records did not consistently show how risks and incidents were monitored, investigated or used to prevent recurrence.
“Records did not reflect that people's risks were always managed safely and that incidents at the home were learned from and prevented in future.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines records and audits since the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure every staff member reads updates about people's health needs?
- 03How do you now record risks, accidents, scratches and marks, and the lessons learned from incidents?
- 04Which staff still need mandatory or refresher training, and when will this be completed?
- 05How are care plans kept up to date with all prescribed medicines and creams?
This was an unannounced inspection that assessed the overall service and all five CQC questions; the earlier breach about manager registration had been resolved. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 2016 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 Trescott Road
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 October 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.