• Care Home
  • Care home

Charles House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

257 Birchfield Road, Perry Barr, Birmingham, West Midlands, B20 3DG (0121) 331 4972

Provided and run by:
Alphonsus Services Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 14 April 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 09 March 2021 and was announced.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 14 April 2021

About the service

Charles House is a residential care home providing personal care for five people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service is registered to support up to 10 people.

People using the service lived in a large house, split over three floors, with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Services for people with learning disabilities and/or autism

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider’s systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service had not always been effective at identifying where the registered provider needed to make some improvements. For example, there was some inconsistency with the recording of audits of medicines.

People were safe using the service. Staff knew how to protect people from harm and reduce the risk of accidents and incidents. At the time of our site visit, we found there were enough suitably recruited staff on duty to meet people’s needs and to keep people safe. People were supported by staff who knew their needs well. Staff supported people with their medicines and this was done safely. Staff understood how to prevent and control the spread of infection.

People had been assessed before being accepted to the service to ensure the provider could meet their needs. Assessments addressed people's physical and health needs, their cultural and language needs, and what was important to them. Staff received training which helped them to deliver personalised care. Our observations showed people looked happy and a choice of food was available and where appropriate, people received additional support with their dietary needs. The provider worked with external health and social care professionals and people were supported to access these services when they needed them to ensure their health was maintained.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs. People and relatives told us how caring the staff were. Staff enjoyed their work and got on well with the people they supported. Staff encouraged people’s independence, protected their privacy and treated them with dignity.

Most of the people using the service at the time of the inspection could not tell us about their experiences. Whilst on site, we saw positive interactions between people and staff and people looked comfortable with the way they were being supported. Relatives we spoke with gave us positive feedback on the service and the way the staff supported their family members to remain safe. Staff provided responsive care to people in line with their preferences and choices. Where people communicated non-verbally staff knew how to engage with them.

People were supported by staff who knew their preferences. Complaints made since the last inspection had been investigated and relatives knew who to contact if they had any concerns. Relatives and staff were happy with the way the service was being led and there was a culture amongst the staff team in providing person-centred care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 11 December 2018).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.