Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Trinity View Care Home

Requires improvementpublished 28 February 2020, 6 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Inspectors found that some risks were not fully assessed or recorded. Medicines, staffing, infection control and safeguarding arrangements were otherwise found to be satisfactory.
Effective?
Good
People's needs were assessed, staff had suitable training and support, and people were helped with eating, drinking and accessing healthcare. Consent and least restrictive care were also considered.
Caring?
Good
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff involved people in decisions and supported them to keep some independence and contact with family.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans recorded people's preferences and staff understood their individual needs. People were offered activities and support to maintain relationships.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The home's quality checks had not identified several problems, including gaps in records and an external lighting issue. A safeguarding matter was also not reported to CQC promptly.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2020

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but safety checks and management systems were not reliable enough.

This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. The visit was unannounced and took place on 7 and 8 January 2020. The inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.

Inspectors found Good care in the effective, caring and responsive areas. People appeared comfortable, staff were kind and respectful, and relatives were positive about the care. There were enough trained staff, medicines were given correctly, and people were supported with food, activities and healthcare.

Safety was Requires Improvement. Some risk assessments and care plans lacked important detail. Records about restraint did not always show that less restrictive options had been considered or that its use had been properly monitored. Some recruitment checks were also completed under the wrong company name.

The home was also Requires Improvement for being well-led. Its checks had not found the problems identified by inspectors, and one safeguarding matter had not been reported to CQC on time. The provider took action during and after the inspection, but CQC found the approach was mainly reactive.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind, respectful care

    Inspectors observed friendly and kind interactions. Relatives were positive about the care, and people appeared comfortable with staff.

    “We observed interactions between staff and people were friendly, discreet and kind.” from the report
  • Enough trained staff

    There were enough experienced staff on duty, and people had a consistent staff team. Recruitment checks were generally completed before staff started work.

    “There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs and the provider ensured people had a consistent staff team.” from the report
  • Medicines managed well

    People received their medicines at the right time. Records were accurate, medicines were stored safely and staff competence was checked.

    “People received the right medication at the right time. Medicines were stored safely and people's medicines administration records (MAR) were completed accurately.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff supported people with activities, choices and contact with their families.

    “Care records included information about people's likes, dislikes and what was important to them.” from the report
  • Good support with health and nutrition

    Staff monitored people's health, worked with other professionals and supported people to eat and drink enough.

    “Where people were at risk of poor nutrition and dehydration, care plans detailed actions such as monitoring the person's food and fluid intake and liaising with other professionals.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Incomplete risk and restraint records

    serious

    One person's care plan did not explain in enough detail how restraint should be used. Restraint records did not always show that less restrictive options had been tried or that use had been monitored.

    “The records of restraint incidents needed improvement to show that less restrictive strategies had been considered prior to the use of restraint and that there was sufficient monitoring of the use of restraint.” from the report
  • Quality checks missed problems

    serious

    The home's audits did not identify several issues found during inspection, including gaps in care records and an external lighting problem. This contributed to the breach of Regulation 17.

    “Audits undertaken had failed to identify the issues we found on inspection and in some instances, for example in relation to the use of restraint there was no evidence of effective monitoring systems in place.” from the report
  • Safeguarding notification was late

    serious

    A safeguarding matter reported to the local authority had not been reported to CQC as required. The notification was submitted retrospectively.

    “One safeguarding issue that had been reported to the local authority prior to the inspection but not notified to us.” from the report
  • Some records lacked detail

    needs fixing

    One care plan lacked detail about a health need that could affect the person's wellbeing. Some records were undated and some took time to locate.

    “Some records were not dated and for some records there were delays in locating them.” from the report
  • Recruitment records used the wrong employer

    needs fixing

    Some Disclosure and Barring Service checks were completed under the company name of another service. The manager said future checks would use the correct employer.

    “Some DBS checks had been completed under the company name for another service managed by the registered manager.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to risk assessments and care plans, particularly for restraint and specific health needs?
  2. 02How do you now record restraint, including alternative approaches considered and monitoring after restraint is used?
  3. 03What checks now make sure audits identify gaps in records, environmental risks and incident learning?
  4. 04How do you make sure safeguarding incidents are notified to CQC and other bodies within the required timescales?
  5. 05Have the planned laundry and kitchen arrangements changed since the inspection?

This was the home's first planned inspection and it covered all five CQC questions, including records, medicines, staffing, care, observations and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2020 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Trinity View Care Home

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.

  1. February 2020Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Trinity View Care Home →

  2. January 2019

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 2019.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Sandwell

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 £1,190 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.

“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
Orkadi L., about Fernanda L.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
Katherine J., about Sibonisiwe N.
See live-in carers near SandwellProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.