CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bingley Wingfield Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risk management, medicines, recruitment and infection control had improved. However, thickener management was inconsistent, and some people and relatives reported waiting for support at evenings and weekends.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this focused visit, so its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this focused visit, so its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this focused visit, so its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Governance had improved through monthly audits, action plans and daily checks, but inspectors found the systems were not yet fully comprehensive or robust.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Bingley Wingfield Nursing Home is Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found progress, but some safety and management checks still needed, and special measures have ended.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 June 2022. Inspectors checked Safe and Well-led, including medicines, risks, staffing, infection control and management systems. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which had rated it Inadequate. Medicines, recruitment, risk management, infection control and quality checks were better. People generally felt safe, and staff were described as kind and supportive.
Inspectors still found weaknesses. One person's thickener was not always managed consistently, some people and relatives reported waits for help in the evenings and at weekends, and medicine records did not yet cover minimum dose intervals. The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led.
The home was no longer in breach of regulations and was no longer in Special Measures. However, this was a focused inspection, so the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection rather than reassessed.
Improved medicines systems
Systems for handling, giving and storing medicines were now in place. Staff also considered people's individual choices and needs.
“Systems were in place for the safe handling, administration and storage of medicines.” from the report
Safer recruitment
Recruitment records contained the required background checks, helping the home check that new staff were suitable.
“Staff personnel records contained appropriate background checks, to ensure new members of staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.” from the report
People felt safe
People largely said they felt safe, and staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report abuse.
“People largely felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Positive staff culture
Inspectors saw patient and caring interactions. Staff said they felt supported, confident to raise concerns and part of a positive team.
“We observed patient, kind and caring interactions between people and staff, who were mindful of people's individual needs.” from the report
Better quality monitoring
Monthly audits, daily checks and an action plan helped the home identify and complete improvements more promptly than before.
“An action plan was used to monitor completion of areas identified for improvement, which were addressed in a timely manner.” from the report
Thickener was not always managed consistently
needs fixingInspectors found that one person's thickener had not been administered consistently. The manager said extra support and guidance would be provided.
“the provider had not identified issues regarding the administration of one person's thickener.” from the report
Some reported waits for help
needs fixingThe home said staffing was enough, but some people and relatives said they sometimes had to wait for support, especially in the evenings and at weekends.
“Some people and their relatives told us there were occasions when they had to wait for support, such as during evenings and weekends.” from the report
Some medicine records needed extending
needs fixingRecords covered time-specific medicines, but had not yet been extended to medicines requiring a minimum interval between doses, such as paracetamol.
“These arrangements had not yet been extended to include medicines with a minimum dose interval, such as paracetamol.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that thickener is prepared and given correctly every time?
- 02How do you record the minimum time between doses for medicines such as paracetamol?
- 03What staffing is planned for evenings and weekends, and how do you respond when people have to wait for help?
- 04How are the new manager's audits and daily checks reviewed to make sure problems are not missed?
- 05Which improvements from the action plan have been completed, and how are they being checked over time?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 2022 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, January 2022
Inadequate and still in special measures; inspectors found risks with medicines, infection control, care records, recruitment and service oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 9 November 2021. Three inspectors spoke with people and staff and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and management records.
The home had made some improvements since its previous inspection, including better accident reviews, completed medicines administration records and stronger monitoring of some risks. However, medicines were still not always given safely, some risks were not properly managed, and care records contained conflicting or inaccurate information.
Inspectors also found problems with infection control. Staff did not always wear masks correctly, suitable protective equipment was not always used for a person with COVID-19, and COVID-19 symptoms were not being checked twice daily. Recruitment checks were incomplete for some staff.
The overall rating remains Inadequate. Safe and well-led were both rated Inadequate. The home remains in special measures, meaning CQC will continue to monitor it and plans to inspect again within six months unless the provider's registration is dealt with another way.
Accident reviews
The home had introduced a stronger system for recording and reviewing accidents and incidents. It looked for patterns and identified actions and learning.
“The provider had introduced a robust system for monitoring and reviewing accidents and incidents.” from the report
Some medicines improvements
Some medicines systems had improved since the previous inspection. Medicines records were complete, returned medicines were secure and covert medicines plans were in place.
“For example, medicine administration record (MAR) charts were fully completed, medicines to be returned to the pharmacy were now secure” from the report
Staff training
Training was one area that the provider monitored effectively. Inspectors found it showed staff received appropriate support.
“They monitored other areas such as training which did show staff received appropriate support.” from the report
Kind interactions
Most people said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions during their visit.
“We observed warm and friendly interactions on the day of our site visit” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome time-specific medicines, including paracetamol, were given too close together. Other medicine records and guidance were also incomplete.
“Time specific medicines were not always given safely including Paracetamol doses that were given too close together.” from the report
Infection control failures
seriousMasks and protective equipment were not always used correctly. COVID-19 monitoring was incomplete, and the infection control policy did not contain full relevant guidance.
“One person had a positive test for COVID-19 and was isolating but staff who supported the person were not wearing appropriate PPE.” from the report
Risks and records were inconsistent
seriousSome people's care plans did not accurately describe their needs. Records also conflicted about food safety, medicines, mobility aids and repositioning.
“Some of these contained inconsistent and inaccurate information, which could lead to people's needs being overlooked or missed.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome staff started work before all required checks had been completed. Two of three recruitment files lacked satisfactory evidence about previous conduct, and one lacked a full employment history.
“Two did not have satisfactory evidence of their conduct in previous employment.” from the report
Poor meal experience
needs fixingInspectors found the lunchtime experience was poor. People had difficulty reaching their food and cutlery, and meals were not made to feel like a distinct part of the day.
“People's meal experience at lunchtime was poor.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousThe home's audits and checks did not identify several important problems. Some policies and the statement of purpose were out of date.
“These did not identify some key issues and secure improvements.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure time-specific medicines, including paracetamol, are given at the correct intervals?
- 02How are you checking that staff use masks and protective equipment correctly, especially when supporting someone with COVID-19?
- 03Have all recruitment checks, including employment references and full work histories, now been completed before staff work with residents?
- 04How are you checking that care plans accurately describe each person's mobility, food, medicines and repositioning needs?
- 05What specific changes have been made to the meal experience and how will you measure whether people are benefiting?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 January 2022 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 Bingley Wingfield Nursing Home
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- July 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Bingley Wingfield Nursing Home →
- January 2022Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Bingley Wingfield Nursing Home →
- May 2021Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 March 2014.
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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.