Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Sisters Hospitallers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus CIO

Christ the King, Footherley Hall

Footherley Lane, Shenstone, Lichfield, WS14 0HG

Requires improvementpublished 20 August 2025, 12 months ago

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

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2023

Christ the King, Footherley Hall was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but important safety and management weaknesses.

This was the home’s first inspection. Inspectors visited unannounced on 5 and 6 October 2023. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines, incident and safeguarding records, training, recruitment, complaints and quality checks.

Inspectors found that medicines, risk management and safeguarding systems were not always safe or reliable. Some people were not repositioned often enough, and action was not taken when one person had not opened their bowels for seven days. Some staff had missed required refresher training, and care plans did not always include up-to-date risk information or mental capacity assessments.

The home was rated Good for caring and responsive care. People were treated with dignity, involved in decisions, supported with personalised care and offered activities they enjoyed. There were enough staff and recruitment checks were completed.

The overall rating was Requires Improvement because the home needed to improve safety, effectiveness and leadership. The provider must send CQC an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress with the local authority.

What inspectors praised

  • Kind and respectful care

    People were treated as individuals and staff supported their dignity, choices and independence.

    “People were treated well and respected as individuals.” from the report

  • Enough staff

    Inspectors found there were enough staff to support people safely. Recruitment checks included employment history, references and DBS checks.

    “There were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report

  • Personalised support

    Care was tailored to people's preferences, communication needs, interests and dietary requirements. Relatives were involved in care planning and kept informed.

    “People received individual, person-centred care in line with their preferences.” from the report

  • Activities and complaints

    People had opportunities to take part in activities they enjoyed and could raise concerns or complaints.

    “People had opportunities to do things they enjoyed.” from the report

  • Working with health professionals

    The home worked with GPs, falls specialists, district nurses and other professionals to support people's health.

    “The provider worked effectively with other agencies.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Medicines and risk management

    serious

    Medicines temperatures and stock records were not always accurate. Care plans did not always explain how to manage medicines or risks, and inspectors found delays in responding to some risks.

    “Medicines were not always managed in a safe way.” from the report

  • Safeguarding and learning from incidents

    serious

    Some bruising concerns were not investigated promptly and safeguarding matters were not always referred to the local authority. Lessons from incidents were not always shared with staff.

    “Systems and processes in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse were not always effective.” from the report

  • Staff training

    needs fixing

    Some staff had not completed required refresher training, including training on safeguarding, falls and supporting people to eat and drink safely.

    “People were at risk of receiving inconsistent care and support as not all staff had received the required training.” from the report

  • Mental capacity records

    serious

    Some care plans did not include mental capacity assessments or best-interest decisions where staff said people's capacity fluctuated.

    “We found the provider was not always working within the principles of the MCA.” from the report

  • Weak quality checks

    serious

    Audits did not consistently identify or correct problems with care plans, medicines, incidents, training and infection control. Call-bell monitoring was also inaccurate and was not checked effectively.

    “The systems in place to assess and manage the quality and safety of the service were not always effective.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been changed to make medicine temperature checks, stock counts and medicine instructions reliable?
  2. 02How do you now make sure people are repositioned as planned and that bowel-management concerns are acted on promptly?
  3. 03Have all staff completed the overdue refresher training, and how is this checked?
  4. 04How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now recorded in care plans?
  5. 05How are safeguarding concerns, incidents, care-plan changes and audit findings reviewed and followed up?

This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 2023 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 Christ the King, Footherley Hall

4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. November 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Christ the King, Footherley Hall →

  2. November 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  3. December 2015Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
  4. April 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  5. February 2023

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 2023.

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.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Same provider

Other services run by Sisters Hospitallers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus CIO

2 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Nearby

Other care homes near Lichfield

All in Staffordshire

Shenstone Hall

Lichfield, WS14 · 1.6 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home

Aston Court Care Home

Sutton Coldfield, B74 · 3.6 km
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home

Mercia Grange

Sutton Coldfield, B74 · 3.8 km
Not yet rated
NursingDementia
Not yet ratedcare home