Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Restful Homes (Sutton Coldfield)

Asprey Court Care Home

Orphanage Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 0BE

Goodpublished 10 February 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Some risk plans needed clearer information, including for self-harm risks. Inspectors also found an unlocked sluice door, a torn crash mat and damaged furniture, although the provider acted immediately.
Effective?
Good
People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and supported, and health and dietary needs were managed. Inspectors noted that mealtime organisation was not consistent across all four units.
Caring?
Good
The report does not give a separate Caring rating. Feedback from people and relatives included that staff were patient, kind, professional and approachable.
Responsive?
Good
The report does not give a separate Responsive rating. It says people's wishes, preferences and dietary needs were known and included in care planning.
Well-led?
Good
There were systems to monitor care and identify improvements. The provider responded positively and acted on issues raised during the inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Rated Good overall; inspectors found effective, caring and well-led support, but safety still Requires Improvement.

Inspectors visited unannounced on 30 November and 4 December 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.

The home was rated Good overall. Effective and well-led were rated Good. Safe remained Requires Improvement, as some care plans did not contain enough information about risks and some environmental hazards were found.

People were protected from abuse, received their medicines as prescribed and had enough staff supporting them. Staff were trained and understood people's needs. The provider acted immediately on several issues found during the inspection.

The inspection was prompted partly by an incident after which a person died. CQC said it was carrying out a separate investigation and did not examine the circumstances of that incident during this inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • Medicines and staffing

    People received their medicines as prescribed, and inspectors saw medicines being given safely. There were enough staff to support people safely, and recruitment checks had been completed.

    At this inspection people received their medicines as prescribed. We observed people being supported to take their medicines safely.from the report
  • Skilled and supported staff

    Staff received role-relevant training and ongoing support. People and relatives spoke positively about staff knowledge and understanding of individual needs.

    Staff received an induction and on-going training and support which helped them carry out their roles effectively.from the report
  • Health and dietary support

    Staff worked with health professionals and made referrals when people's needs changed. Staff understood dietary requirements, and people received enough food and drink.

    Where people had specific dietary needs, staff were aware, and people received food and drink that was safe and met their needs.from the report
  • Positive leadership

    Inspectors found a positive culture, with staff working professionally and collaboratively. The provider acted quickly on issues identified during the visit.

    The provider responded positively to the inspection and took immediate action where they could on issues identified during the inspection.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Risk information was incomplete

    serious

    Some care plans needed more information about known risks and preventive measures. This included clearer escalation information for people at risk of self-harm, although the plans were updated during the inspection.

    We discussed where there was a risk of self-harm for some people, additional information was needed, so the escalation process was clear.from the report
  • Environmental hazards

    serious

    Inspectors found an unlocked sluice door, a torn crash mat and damaged furniture. The provider removed the immediate risks on the day and planned furniture replacements.

    This included an unlocked sluice door, a torn crash mat and a damaged piece of furniture.from the report
  • Infection control practice

    needs fixing

    Hand washing before meals was not consistent. The provider addressed this immediately and included it in regular checks.

    We observed hand washing for people prior to meal times, was not consistent.from the report
  • Mealtimes varied between units

    minor

    Some units were better organised and made mealtimes more enjoyable than others. The provider reviewed its mealtime checks and acted on the feedback.

    We saw some units were more organised and made the mealtime a more enjoyable experience, however this was not consistent on all 4 units.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done since the inspection to make sure every risk assessment contains clear preventive measures and escalation steps?
  2. 02How do you check that hazards such as damaged furniture, crash mats and unlocked doors are identified and dealt with promptly?
  3. 03How do you make sure hand washing before meals is now consistent across all four units?
  4. 04What changes have been made to make mealtimes equally well organised across all four units?
  5. 05What were the outcomes of the safeguarding investigations that were still in progress at the inspection?

This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the premises and care, with ratings reported for Safe, Effective and Well-led; the report does not give separate Caring or Responsive ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 2024 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 Asprey Court Care Home

3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Asprey Court Care Home

  2. January 2022Goodstayed Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. July 2018Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. August 2017

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 August 2017.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Nearby

Other care homes near Birmingham

Chesterberry

Birmingham, B24 · 0.2 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home

Marian House

Birmingham, B24 · 0.3 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 2 months agocare home

Cedarwood Care Centre

Birmingham, B23 · 0.3 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 4 years agocare home

Silver Birch

Birmingham, B24 · 0.3 km
Requires improvement
Residential
Rated 4 years agocare home