The Villa
Telford, TF7 · 0.3 km
NursingDementia
Rated 5 years agocare home
CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Eeze Old School House
The Old School House
Old School House, 17 Church Street, Madeley, Telford, TF7 5BN
Requires improvementpublished 1 February 2024, 2 years ago
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
The five questions inspectors ask
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and staff understood safeguarding and individual risks. Medicines, recruitment, infection control and emergency arrangements were also found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Assessments reflected people's needs and staff supported people with food, healthcare and communication. The home followed the Mental Capacity Act and used least restrictive, best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in decisions about their care. Staff understood people's goals, preferences and individual characteristics.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans had improved, but end-of-life wishes, thoughts and beliefs were not fully recorded. Activities were limited and support to join in was not consistent across the staff team.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider had introduced better quality checks and management changes, but these needed to become established and show reliable results over time. Feedback had been collected but not yet reviewed and published.
The latest report, explained
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, effective and caring support, but activities, end-of-life planning and management checks still needed work.
This was a follow-up inspection after the previous rating of Inadequate. One inspector visited on 18 December 2023 and 16 January 2024. They spoke with 2 people, 2 relatives and 6 staff, and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, decisions and quality checks.
The home had improved in several important areas. People were protected from abuse, medicines were given safely, staff understood people's risks, and people received effective and kind support. People were involved in their care plans and could access healthcare when needed.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Caring were rated Good. Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement because activities were limited, end-of-life preferences were not fully recorded, and recent improvements to monitoring and feedback had not yet been shown to work consistently over time.
What inspectors praised
Safeguarding
Staff had refreshed safeguarding training and knew how to respond to suspected abuse. The provider had systems for reporting and investigating concerns.
“People were protected from the risks of abuse.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and assessed as competent, and guidance was in place for medicines given when needed.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in decisions about their care. Staff supported people's individual goals and aspirations.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was supported by staff.” from the report
Healthcare support
People were supported to access healthcare promptly. Staff shared information with healthcare professionals and understood people's health needs.
“People were supported to access healthcare provisions effectively and in a timely way.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
End-of-life planning
needs fixingCare plans did not fully record people's personal end-of-life preferences, thoughts and beliefs. The report says this needed further assessment and recording.
“the information was focused on the functional elements of care and not personalised individual preferences, thoughts and beliefs which needed to be assessed and recorded.” from the report
Quality checks not yet established
needs fixingThe provider had introduced improved monitoring systems, but needed to show that they were reliable and effective over time. Recent feedback had not yet been reviewed and published.
“However, these improvements needed to be embedded in the management teams practice and demonstrated as reliable and effective over time.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
- 01How are each person's end-of-life wishes, beliefs and preferences recorded and reviewed?
- 02What activities are now available, and how do you make sure they are purposeful and matched to each person's interests and skills?
- 03How do you check that all staff support people consistently with activities and social contact?
- 04What has happened to the feedback collected from people, relatives and staff, and has it now been reviewed and shared?
- 05Who is managing the home now, and what progress has been made towards registering the manager?
This was a follow-up inspection covering all five questions, the premises and the care provided; the previous Inadequate ratings improved, but Responsive and Well-led remained Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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.
An earlier report, explained
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks, poor care planning and weak management.
Inspectors visited on 19 and 23 October 2023. They observed care, spoke with one person, three relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicine records and management checks. Three people were living in the home at the time.
They found serious problems with safety, consent, personalised care and management. Risks included exposed hot water pipes, unsafe electrical access, unsecured wardrobes, unrestricted windows and missing risk assessments. The home also failed to properly investigate possible abuse or follow the rules about people's mental capacity and best interests.
The overall rating fell from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Inadequate. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Inadequate. Caring was rated Requires Improvement. The home was placed in special measures, meaning CQC will keep it under review and normally reinspect within six months.
What inspectors praised
Staffing levels
Inspectors found there were enough staff to respond to people in a timely way.
“People were supported by enough staff to respond to them in a timely way.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The provider carried out recruitment checks, including checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service.
“This included checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).” from the report
Kind individual staff
Relatives said staff were kind, approachable and wanted the best for people, although they were concerned about management.
“They are kind and approachable and I know they want the best for [person's name].” from the report
Complaints process
People and relatives knew how to complain. The home had an easy-read complaints policy and records of a recent complaint and its outcome.
“The complaints policy was available for people in an easy read format with a written record of the most recent complains” from the report
Visiting
There were no restrictions on visiting, and visitors could access the home freely.
“There were no restriction placed on visiting and visitors could access the home freely.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
Physical safety hazards
seriousPeople were exposed to risks from hot water pipes, electrical wires, unsecured wardrobes and windows without restrictors. Some emergency signs were also missing.
“There were exposed hot water pipes which put people at the risk of burns.” from the report
Possible abuse not dealt with
seriousThe provider did not properly record or investigate suspected assaults and other concerns. Safeguarding alerts and protective risk assessments were not put in place when needed.
“The provider failed to identify, assess, mitigate or investigate potential risks of abuse.” from the report
Consent and best interests
seriousCapacity assessments were inconsistent and generic. The home made some decisions for people without showing that these were lawful, necessary and in their best interests.
“The principles of MCA were not understood or followed within the home.” from the report
Poor care planning
seriousCare plans did not accurately describe people's needs, wishes, communication, risks or goals. Reviews used the same wording for different people and did not involve them or their relatives.
“People were not actively engaged in the development of their care plans.” from the report
Limited activities and independence
needs fixingPeople were not given enough support to develop skills, make choices, take positive risks or join meaningful activities. One person had stayed in their room for two days without clear evidence of support to reduce isolation.
“Activities were limited and did not encourage skills or independence.” from the report
CCTV privacy concerns
needs fixingThe home could not explain who monitored the CCTV, whether cameras recorded sound or how people's consent and privacy had been considered.
“The manager said, "I don't even know which camera's have sound so it is not known who is able to listen into conversations.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
- 01Have all the exposed hot water pipes, electrical hazards, unsecured wardrobes and unrestricted windows now been made safe?
- 02How are you now recording and investigating safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents?
- 03How do you complete and review individual mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions?
- 04Can we see how each person's care plan now reflects their current needs, wishes, communication and goals?
- 05Who can view or listen to the CCTV, and how are people's consent, privacy and best interests recorded?
This follow-up inspection covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, and checked progress after the previous inspection's breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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 The Old School House
9 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2023Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2022Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2022Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2022Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 2020.
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 Telford
Requires improvement
The Willows
Telford, TF7 · 0.5 km
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home
Hermitage Way - Telford
Telford, TF7 · 1.1 km
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home
Woodside Place
Telford, TF7 · 1.2 km
NursingDementia
Not yet ratedcare home
Bennett House
Telford, TF7 · 1.3 km
ResidentialDementia
Rated last monthcare home
Lightmoor View
Telford, TF7 · 1.8 km
NursingDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home