Rated Care Homes

Rushall Care Home

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 6 ratings

    Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.

  • 3 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 18 of 57

    rated care homes in Walsall are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Rushall Care Home: inspection record

Care home with nursing, 39 beds, Walsall

Rated Requires improvement in July 2026, down from Good.

Rushall Care Home: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Harden Hall (Good, 0.5 miles away) and Pegasus Care – Harden (Good, 0.6 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Leighswood Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Harden Hall Good, 0.5 miles away
  3. G
    Pegasus Care – Harden Good, 0.6 miles away
  4. G
    Alexia Court Care Home Good, 0.7 miles away
  5. G
    Arboretum Nursing Home Good, 0.9 miles away

See all care homes in Walsall

See all care homes in Rushall

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 3 July 2026 (assessment visit 16 March 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Assessment: 16 March 2026. Rushall Care Home is a nursing home registered to accommodate up to 39 service users. At the time of this assessment, 35 people were living at the service. The service provides care for both older and younger adults, including people living with dementia, learning disabilities, mental health needs and complex physical health conditions.

  • Safe No rating
  • Effective No rating
  • Caring No rating
  • Responsive No rating
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

This unannounced assessment was carried out in response to emerging risk.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence and access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the service was not consistently delivering care in line with these standards.

We found the service was not consistently delivering care in a way that met people’s individual needs or protected them from avoidable harm. Staff were not always provided with clear or accurate guidance to support people safely and consistently. This was particularly evident for people living with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, emotional distress and long‑term health conditions.

Leaders and staff did not always recognise or respond appropriately to risk. We identified unsafe medicines management practices, including unsecured topical medicines accessible to people living with dementia. There were also significant shortfalls in how emotional distress and behaviours were understood, recorded and responded to, with staff often relying on personal judgement rather than structured guidance or evidence‑based approaches.

Safeguarding processes were not always effective as the provider did not consistently identify incidents that met safeguarding thresholds. As a result, risks of abuse, neglect and inappropriate restraint were not fully recognised or mitigated.

Governance systems failed to provide effective oversight and opportunities to learn from incidents were sometimes missed.

Despite the concerns identified during this assessment, there were examples of positive practice across the service. Most people and relatives described many staff as kind, caring and familiar with people’s individual preferences and needs. Staff were observed interacting respectfully with people. The service worked with GPs, therapists and specialist teams to support people to access to healthcare.

Recruitment and induction processes were in place to ensure staff had the appropriate core skills and many staff described a supportive team culture and positive working relationships. Medicines were generally ordered, administered and recorded safely, and infection prevention and control systems were established, with people and relatives describing the home as clean and well maintained.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to person-centred care, safe care and treatment, safeguarding and good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires improvement: This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment and safeguarding.

  2. Effective

    No rating

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement: This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

  3. Caring

    No rating

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires improvement: This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to Person centred care.

  4. Responsive

    No rating

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires improvement: This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to Good Governance.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 3 July 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 3 July 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Caring was rated Requires improvement on 3 July 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
  4. Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 3 July 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.

Registration details

Registered manager
Philip Toomer-Smith
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service with nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, Older People, Younger Adults

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

5 inspection reports, latest 15 September 2023. Latest assessment published 3 July 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
9157425 (opens Companies House)

Navigation Care Limited runs 2 services, all in the West Midlands. 1 is rated Good or Outstanding and 1 is rated Requires improvement or Inadequate.

Other services run by Navigation Care Limited

  1. G
    Alexia Court Care Home Good. Care home with nursing, Walsall

Getting help from Walsall Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Rushall Care Home provide nursing care?
Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Rushall Care Home as a care home with nursing.
How many beds does Rushall Care Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 39 beds at Rushall Care Home.
When was Rushall Care Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Rushall Care Home was published on 3 July 2026.
Who runs Rushall Care Home?
Rushall Care Home is run by Navigation Care Limited. It runs 2 services, all in the West Midlands.
What is Rushall Care Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 3 July 2026.

Contact

Phone
01922 635328
Address
204 Lichfield Road, Walsall, WS4 1SA Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Harden Hall (Good, 0.5 miles away) and Pegasus Care – Harden (Good, 0.6 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Leighswood Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Harden Hall Good, 0.5 miles away
  3. G
    Pegasus Care – Harden Good, 0.6 miles away
  4. G
    Alexia Court Care Home Good, 0.7 miles away
  5. G
    Arboretum Nursing Home Good, 0.9 miles away

See all care homes in Walsall

See all care homes in Rushall