CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 18 Wolverton Gardens, Horley (Active Prospects)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines procedures. The home had systems for safeguarding, infection control and learning from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and support needs were assessed and reviewed with professionals where needed. Staff had relevant training and people were asked for consent before care was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. People were offered choices, supported to communicate, and encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People had detailed care plans, communication support and individual activity plans. Complaints were handled in line with the home's policy, although four people did not yet have completed end of life plans.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and supportive culture, regular staff communication and effective checks on quality. The manager acted on identified problems and worked with other professionals.
What inspectors found, February 2020
18 Wolverton Gardens, Horley (Active Prospects) was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some plans and activities still being developed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 10 January 2020. Two inspectors observed care, spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals, and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training and management records.
The home supported five people with profound learning disabilities and complex physical health needs. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity and encouraged to make choices and become more independent. Care plans were personalised, staff understood people's communication needs, and people had access to health professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the report found consistently good care and management. The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 3 October 2017.
Personalised support
Care was planned around each person's health, communication, preferences and goals. Staff used these plans to guide daily support.
“People using the service received person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.” from the report
Safety and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with appropriate recruitment checks and clear safeguarding arrangements.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff understood people's individual medicines needs, including when medicines were needed only sometimes.
“People received the right support to take their medicines as prescribed and medicine recording practices were safe.” from the report
Health support
The home worked with health and social care professionals and followed advice about nutrition, mobility, oral care and other health needs.
“Staff worked closely with other social care and healthcare professionals as well as other organisations to ensure people received a coordinated service.” from the report
Meal planning
needs fixingThe meal served during the inspection did not match the menu. The manager said menu planning would be reviewed.
“The meal provided on the day of our inspection did not reflect what was on the menu.” from the report
End of life plans
needs fixingOnly one person had an end of life care plan. Plans for the other four people had not yet been completed by the local authority.
“The local authority had undertaken responsibility to complete plans for the remaining four people and these were not yet completed.” from the report
Earlier night-time care concern
needs fixingAn unannounced night visit had identified poor care. The manager made further unannounced visits and reported consistent improvement afterwards.
“For example, during an unannounced waking night visit, poor care was identified.” from the report
Bathroom equipment
minorA tracking hoist recommended for two people was due to be installed one week after the inspection. Families should check that it was installed and remains suitable.
“We saw documentation which showed the hoist was scheduled for installation one week following inspection.” from the report
- 01Was the tracking hoist installed as planned, and how is its safety and suitability checked now?
- 02Have end of life care plans been completed for all five people, and are families involved in agreeing them?
- 03What changed after the unannounced waking night visit identified poor care?
- 04How do you make sure meals match the menu and still meet each person's dietary needs and choices?
- 05What new in-house activities have been added for people who are less able to go out?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality and safety of the care home. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 2020 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.
What inspectors found, October 2017
18 Wolverton Gardens, Horley (Active Prospects) was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 September 2017. One inspector spoke with four care staff, the manager and two visiting care professionals. They observed care, lunch and part of the medicines round, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and complex needs. Inspectors found that people were safe, had enough staff, received medicines safely and had access to healthcare. Staff were trained and understood how to support people who became anxious or distressed.
Staff were kind and respectful. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities suited to their interests. The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Kind and respectful support
Staff took time to listen and communicate with people. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity, privacy and respect.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. A member of staff said that maintaining a person's dignity is about fulfilling care needs, talking warmly and listening to people.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to help with everyday tasks, make choices and work towards personal goals, including greater independence with medicines.
“People's care plans focused on the goals people wanted to achieve to increase their independence.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Activities matched people's interests and included arts and crafts, cookery, shopping and trips out. Each person had an activity timetable.
“People were now supported with a wide range of activities that met their interests and preferences.” from the report
Improvements in management
Since the previous inspection, the home had improved its audits, notifications to CQC, equipment maintenance and oversight of care.
“During this inspection we saw that improvements had been made in this area.” from the report
Safer support when people became distressed
Staff had better knowledge of behavioural support plans. Inspectors found that incidents involving distress and agitation had decreased.
“This had led to a decrease in incidents at the service.” from the report
Authorisations were still pending
minorAll people living at the home had restrictions on their freedom, such as a locked front door or constant supervision. Applications for the required authorisations had been made but were still being processed at the inspection.
“At the time of the inspection all applications were still being processed by the local authority.” from the report
- 01What is the current position on the applications for authorising restrictions on people's freedom?
- 02How do you check that medicines are given on time and that records remain accurate?
- 03How will you continue to reduce incidents when people become anxious, distressed or agitated?
- 04How are each person's activities, independence goals and communication preferences reviewed?
- 05What actions from recent audits or complaints are still being monitored?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 October 2017 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.
Every inspection of 18 Wolverton Gardens, Horley (Active Prospects)
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at 18 Wolverton Gardens, Horley (Active Prospects) →
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at 18 Wolverton Gardens, Horley (Active Prospects) →
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.