Rated Care Homes

Marian House

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 2 ratings

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

  • 4 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 54 of 245

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

Marian House: inspection record

Care home, 20 beds, Birmingham

Rated Requires improvement in June 2026, down from Good.

Marian House: 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: Hollywood Rest Home Limited (Good, less than 0.1 miles away) and Asprey Court Care Home (Good, 0.2 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Hollywood Rest Home Limited Good, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Asprey Court Care Home Good, 0.2 miles away
  3. G
    Chesterberry Good, 0.2 miles away
  4. G
    109 Grange Road Good, 0.3 miles away
  5. RI
    Silver Birch Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in Birmingham

See all care homes in Erdington

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 26 June 2026 (assessment visit 10 March 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Assessment: 16 March 2026 to 29 April 2026. We visited the home on 16 March and 13 April 2026, additional information and evidence were reviewed remotely. We looked at all 5 Key Questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.

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

The service is a residential care home providing support to up to 20 people with a learning disability and autistic people. At the time of the inspection 18 people were living at the service.

At this inspection we found 3 breaches of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, premises and equipment, and good governance. Following this inspection the overall rating has changed from good to requires improvement.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and access to communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people which providers must adhere to. We found the provider was not consistently meeting the principles of Right support, right care, right culture. People’s needs, preferences, aspirations and outcomes were not routinely reviewed in accordance with its principles. This limited people’s opportunity to live an ordinary life and be supported in ways that reflected their individual choices and goals. When the provider made changes and adjustments to the care home this guidance had not been fully considered.

Risks to people were not always assessed, monitored or managed effectively. Environmental safety checks and fire safety arrangements were not robust. Recruitment processes were not always followed, and no audits were in place for these. Governance systems were not effective enough to identify and address shortfalls, and the provider had limited oversight of risk and quality. Care plans and risk assessments lacked information to guide and inform staff about safe and effective care. People’s care records did not consistently detail goals, aspirations or opportunities for people to build their independence or develop new skills.

We observed staff interacting with people in a warm, caring and respectful way. All the staff we spoke with were kind and compassionate when speaking about the people they supported. The atmosphere in the home was friendly, and people told us they felt safe and happy living there. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Medicines were generally well managed. The environment was clean and staff worked well with external health and social care professionals to support people’s needs. The provider acted quickly when issues were identified for example, risk assessments were implemented, window restrictors were fitted, damaged chairs were replaced, storage of bags and coats reviewed, lockable storage for records in the lounge was provided and plans commenced regarding painting and decorating of the home. The provider had engaged with the local authority quality team and had begun making improvements to governance processes and documentation.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this on our website after any representations and / or appeals have been concluded.

  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 premises and equipment

  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

    Good

    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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their 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 at the service.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 26 June 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 26 June 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 26 June 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.
  4. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 26 June 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.

Registration details

Registered manager
Sarah Evans
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, Mental Health, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment, Younger Adults

Inspection report

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

3 inspection reports, latest 15 March 2022. Latest assessment published 26 June 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
10265389 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Birmingham City 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 Marian House provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Marian House as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Marian House have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 20 beds at Marian House.
When was Marian House last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Marian House was published on 26 June 2026.
Who runs Marian House?
Marian House is run by Marian House Care Home Limited.
What is Marian House's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 26 June 2026.

Contact

Address
803 Chester Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 0BX Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Hollywood Rest Home Limited (Good, less than 0.1 miles away) and Asprey Court Care Home (Good, 0.2 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Hollywood Rest Home Limited Good, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Asprey Court Care Home Good, 0.2 miles away
  3. G
    Chesterberry Good, 0.2 miles away
  4. G
    109 Grange Road Good, 0.3 miles away
  5. RI
    Silver Birch Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in Birmingham

See all care homes in Erdington