CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brighton & Hove City Council - Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were not always stored or recorded safely. One medicine fridge had been outside the recommended temperature range for over two months without action being taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received personalised support, had choices about food and drink, and were supported by trained staff who worked well with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous comprehensive inspection rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous comprehensive inspection rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers investigated incidents, monitored call bell response times, involved people in feedback and supported staff to raise concerns and suggest improvements.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Brighton & Hove City Council - Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre is rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because medicines were not always managed safely.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 May 2021. One inspector and a medicines team member visited, spoke with people, staff and professionals, observed medicines being given, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because medicine fridge temperatures and medicine stock checks were not always recorded accurately. The report says this created an increased risk that people could be harmed.
Inspectors also found kind and respectful staff, enough staff on the visit, good support for people's mental and physical health, and effective work with other professionals. The home acted during and after the inspection by changing forms, improving storage temperature charts and providing further medicine record-keeping advice and training.
Kind and respectful support
People said staff understood their needs and helped them feel safe. Inspectors saw staff speaking respectfully and promoting people's independence and choices.
“People told us they felt safe from harm and well cared for by staff who understood their needs and were kind and supportive.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home communicated effectively with health and social care professionals about people's needs, risks and progress.
“There is really good partnership work with us and other services. There is trust that [Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre] is effective in working with people's needs and risks.” from the report
Clean and infection-aware setting
Inspectors were assured about infection prevention measures, including visits, protective equipment, testing and safe admissions. People said the building was clean and they felt protected from COVID-19.
“People we spoke with all told us the building was kept very clean and they felt protected from COVID-19.” from the report
Personalised care and choice
People helped shape their assessments and care plans. Plans included their preferences, goals, mental health needs and support for physical health.
“People were involved in their assessments and reviews, these were holistic and included personal preferences, their aims and objectives.” from the report
Medicine fridge records
seriousFridge records did not show the highest and lowest temperatures. One fridge appeared to have been outside the recommended range for more than two months, with no action recorded.
“The records for one fridge indicated the temperature had been outside of the recommended temperature range for over two months and no action had been taken.” from the report
Some people wanted more feedback opportunities
minorAlthough resident meetings and surveys took place, some people said they wanted more chances to give feedback about the service.
“Some people wanted more opportunities to give feedback to the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to record the highest and lowest medicine fridge temperatures, and who checks these records?
- 02How are medicine stock checks now checked for accuracy?
- 03What further medicine training and competency checks have staff completed since the inspection?
- 04How can residents and families give feedback, and how often are suggestions from resident meetings acted on?
- 05What progress has been made with the planned improvements to the gardens, flooring and décor?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and previous comprehensive inspection ratings for those areas were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 2021 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, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improved activities and a few areas still being developed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 April 2018. Two inspectors, an expert-by-experience and CQC staff looked at care, medicines, records, staffing, the building and how the home was managed. They spoke with seven people, staff, the manager and visiting professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, listened to and respected. Inspectors found care plans were detailed and personalised, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
The home had improved its activities since the previous inspection in November 2015. People could use an activity room, join in games and crafts, and go out with staff. The report also noted that staff had not yet received Accessible Information Standard training and that safe recruitment could not be fully evidenced because there had been no recent external recruitment.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and knew who to speak to if they had worries. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“Systems had been maintained to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People consistently described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful support that protected people's dignity and privacy.
“People continued to be supported by kind and caring staff who treated them with respect and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, preferences and support needs. People were involved in creating and reviewing their care plans and were encouraged to stay independent.
“Care and support was personalised and based on the identified needs of each person.” from the report
Better activities
The home had acted on the previous concern about limited activities. People could use an activity room, join in games and crafts, and take part in outings.
“At this inspection we found work had been undertaken to address this.” from the report
Open management
Staff said the management team was approachable and supportive. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to identify shortfalls and plan improvements.
“Senior staff continued to monitor the quality of the service by regularly speaking with people” from the report
Communication training pending
minorStaff had not yet received training on the Accessible Information Standard at the time of inspection. The provider had arranged for this training to be available shortly.
“Staff had not yet received AIS training, however, the provider had arranged for this training for staff to access shortly.” from the report
Recruitment checks not fully evidenced
needs fixingThere had been no external recruitment since the previous inspection, so inspectors could not fully check whether safe recruitment procedures were being followed. The manager said future recruitment would include references and criminal records checks.
“There had been no external recruitment of new staff since the last inspection. So it was not possible to fully evidence that safe recruitment process were in place.” from the report
Menu review in progress
minorThe menu was being reviewed after younger people asked for more variety. Ask whether this review has now been completed and what choices are available.
“Work was also in progress to review the menu following feedback from the younger people living in the service” from the report
- 01Has all Accessible Information Standard training now been completed, and how are people's communication needs recorded?
- 02For any staff recruited since this inspection, how have references and criminal records checks been completed and recorded?
- 03What activities are currently available, including activities outside the home, and how do you support people who find it difficult to join in?
- 04Has the menu review been completed, and how are people's requests for more variety being addressed?
- 05How are medicines audits and care plan reviews checked when people's needs or medicines change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the home remained Good overall, with Responsive improving from the previous inspection in November 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 2018 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 Brighton & Hove City Council - Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Brighton & Hove City Council - Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre →
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Brighton & Hove City Council - Wayfield Avenue Resource Centre →
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2010.
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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.