CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Walmley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, staff understood safeguarding and risk assessments were detailed and current. However, one medicine chart did not accurately show the number of medicines held, and incident patterns were not being tracked.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and knowledge needed to support people's health, nutrition and communication needs. Staff worked with health and social care professionals and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. Staff listened to people, supported independence and involved them in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and adapted to people's needs, preferences and communication abilities. People were supported to pursue important goals, and complaints could be raised with the provider.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People, relatives and staff had confidence in the management team. However, audits were basic, lacked effective action plans and did not consistently identify or address known risks.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Walmley House was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the home needed to improve its management checks.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. Inspectors visited on 19 and 20 January 2022. They spoke with people, staff, a relative and professionals, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People told inspectors they felt safe and well supported. Staff knew people's needs, supported their choices and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Management audits were basic and did not always identify or fix problems. Inspectors found gaps in one recruitment record, incomplete medicine information on one chart, and limited evidence of learning from incidents.
Overall, the Good rating means inspectors found people's care was generally safe, effective, caring and responsive. It does not mean everything was perfect, and the home was expected to improve its oversight and quality checks.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's preferences, needs and goals. People were supported to maintain relationships, develop independence and make everyday choices.
“People were supported to achieve the goals that were important to them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as caring and patient. Inspectors found that staff listened, protected privacy and encouraged independence.
“People and their relatives felt staff encouraged them with independence.” from the report
Good understanding of needs
Staff understood people's risks, health needs and communication methods. Care plans were updated when people's needs changed.
“Care plans and risk assessments identified people's individual support needs and ways to help people stay safe.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews. Staff used different communication methods to help people express their views.
“People and their relatives were able to express their views and make decisions about their care.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingManagement audits were basic and did not include enough analysis or clear actions. Earlier findings were not always followed through.
“These appeared very basic with the manager colour coding certain areas of practice.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingOne medicine administration chart did not accurately record the number of medicines held. A previous audit had identified a similar issue, but it had not been properly addressed.
“There was no action leading from this information to reduce risk of re-occurrence.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingOne staff file did not clearly explain a period of unemployment. The gap had not been investigated in writing or risk assessed.
“This had not been investigated by the hiring manager, nor had a risk assessment been completed.” from the report
Future end of life planning
minorEnd of life plans had not been completed because people living at the home were relatively young and healthy. Management accepted this would be good practice for the future.
“We saw that the registered manager had not completed end of life plans for people.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure medicine administration charts always show the correct quantities?
- 02How do you now investigate gaps in staff employment history and record any risk assessment?
- 03How do you track accidents, incidents and complaints, and make sure actions are completed?
- 04What improvements have you made to your quality audits since this inspection?
- 05When will end of life plans be discussed and recorded for people living at the home?
This was a planned first inspection since registration and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2022 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 Walmley House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 October 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 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.