CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Gwen Walford House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Gwen Walford House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, while staffing deployment was still under review.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 20 and 21 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, received their medicines, had their needs assessed and were supported by kind staff who knew them well.
The main issue was staffing deployment. Some relatives said people sometimes waited for support, so the manager was reviewing dependency levels, staffing arrangements and call bell response times. The overall rating stayed Good, as inspectors judged the service was consistently meeting people's needs.
Kind and respectful staff
People were supported by staff who knew them well and treated them with compassion. Inspectors saw staff reassuring people, respecting their dignity and offering discreet help.
“People were supported by caring staff who knew people well.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's histories, preferences, cultural and spiritual needs, and activities they enjoyed. Staff adapted support to individual wishes.
“We saw staff were able to provide personalised care tailored to the needs and wishes of the individual.” from the report
Good support with food and health
People had meal choices, could ask for something different and were supported to eat and drink enough. Staff made appropriate healthcare referrals and worked with community professionals.
“People enjoyed the mealtime experience as a social event.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share feedback and ideas. The management team used audits, meetings and incident reviews to plan improvements.
“There were robust systems in place to identify the improvements needed.” from the report
Staffing and response times
needs fixingSome relatives said people sometimes had to wait for support. Staffing levels, staff deployment and call bell response times were still being reviewed to make sure needs were met consistently.
“Relatives said sometimes their family members had to wait for the support they needed.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels and staff deployment since the inspection?
- 02What were the call bell response times, and how are they monitored now?
- 03How do you make sure people do not have to wait for essential support?
- 04How often are agency staff used, and how do you make sure they know each person's needs?
- 05How are people's activities and social contact adapted to their individual interests and communication needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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, September 2017
Gwen Walford House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with activities needing further stimulation.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 July 2017. One inspector, a nursing specialist and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and others, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home provided accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 30 people. There were 23 people living there. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and staff who understood safeguarding. People received support with food, drink, health care and their individual needs.
People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors found that people were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and supported to remain independent. There was no registered manager in post, but a new manager had been appointed and had applied to register with the CQC. All five areas and the overall service were rated Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient for the people living at the home. Call bells were answered promptly.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Nurses gave medicines calmly and checked that people had taken them. The related records were complete and accurate.
“Records supporting and evidencing the safe administration of medicines were complete and accurate.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
Staff were warm and compassionate. Inspectors saw privacy, dignity and people's choices being respected.
“Staff engagement with people was compassionate, relaxed, and warm.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, including food, fluids, wounds and pressure care. Staff knew people well and noticed changes in their condition.
“We saw how nurses had prepared personalised care plans for people following an initial assessment on admission to the home.” from the report
Open management
People were involved in running the home and staff felt able to raise concerns or suggestions with managers.
“There was an open and inclusive culture where people were actively involved in running their home.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A new manager had been appointed and had applied to register with the CQC.
“There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Activities needed more stimulation
needs fixingOne staff member described activities as inconsistent and felt people needed more stimulation. A new activities coordinator had just been appointed.
“Another member of staff described activities for people as 'hit and miss.' They felt more stimulation for people was required, but acknowledged a new coordinator had just been appointed.” from the report
Oven was not working
minorOne person said they enjoyed baking but could not currently use the oven. This may have limited one activity at the time of the inspection.
“We've made cakes here because I like baking, but the oven isn't working at the moment.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager now registered with the CQC, and who is legally responsible for the home while registration is pending?
- 02What activities are now offered, and has the oven been repaired so people can continue baking?
- 03How will staffing levels be reviewed if the number of people living at the home increases?
- 04What actions came from the provider's audits, and how are managers checking that those actions have been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the service; the report says the service had not previously been inspected under this provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 September 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 Gwen Walford House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 2015.
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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.