CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at InFocus Charity
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, safe medicines management, good safeguarding knowledge and enough staff. People were supported to take positive risks while remaining safe.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- Staff had thorough, specialist training and worked closely with nurses, therapists, doctors and other professionals. People were supported to make decisions, improve their health and develop independence.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found a kind and respectful culture. Staff understood how people communicated and supported privacy, relationships, personal choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care plans were detailed, regularly updated and focused on each person's preferences, communication and goals. People were supported to take part in activities, develop skills and maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found open and inclusive leadership, strong teamwork and detailed quality checks. Feedback and incidents were analysed, with learning shared across staff teams.
What inspectors found, March 2020
WESC Foundation was rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptional care, support and leadership, with safety rated Good.
Inspectors visited on 14 and 20 November 2019. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with six people, four relatives, managers and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, complaints and quality records.
The home supports up to 21 people with visual impairment and other complex needs. Nineteen people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found care was safe, kind and highly personalised. People were supported to communicate, make choices, build independence and take part in activities at home and in the community.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Outstanding for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection, published on 4 April 2017. The report says the home had made further improvements.
The home is larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the design, with three separate lodges, helped reduce the possible negative effects of its size.
Personalised support
Care was planned around people's individual communication methods, routines, health needs and goals. People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
“People received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.” from the report
Safe independence
Staff balanced safety with people's freedom to try new things. Inspectors saw examples of people becoming more independent in the home and community.
“Risk assessments were very detailed with clear control measures and instructions for staff.” from the report
Specialist staff knowledge
Training covered visual impairment, communication, mobility, medicines and people's specific health conditions. Staff were supported through induction, supervision and further development.
“Staff training was extremely thorough due to peoples' complex needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff developed meaningful relationships and supported people to express choices in their own ways. Families gave consistently positive feedback about the care.
“People who used the service were treated with compassion and kindness and staff developed meaningful relationships respecting privacy and dignity.” from the report
Strong leadership and oversight
Managers used live records, audits, feedback and incident reviews to monitor care and share learning. The service worked with families, professionals and community organisations.
“Comprehensive quality checks were available in real time as the provider could access a live data recording system which could review all records and incidents instantly and on a regular basis.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home is larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the three-lodge design helped reduce the impact, but families should consider whether the size and layout suit their relative.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How do the three separate lodges affect daily life, staffing and opportunities to mix with other people?
- 02How will you support my relative to communicate choices, discomfort and consent?
- 03How do you balance safety with independence when someone wants to travel, attend activities or access the community?
- 04How are specialist staff training and competency checked for my relative's specific health and communication needs?
- 05How are families involved when an incident happens, and how is learning from it shared with staff?
This was a planned inspection of the care home that assessed all five key questions and looked at both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
What inspectors found, May 2017
WESC Foundation: Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some mental capacity records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 April 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with 10 staff and four relatives, and looked at six people's care records and other service records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People appeared comfortable with staff, relatives spoke highly of the care, and staffing levels and recruitment were appropriate.
Inspectors found detailed, personalised care plans, good support with communication and activities, and access to healthcare and specialist services. They recommended improvements to recording best-interest decisions when people could not make particular decisions themselves.
There were also smaller record-keeping issues, including some medicine storage temperature entries, one undated liquid medicine, a missing fluid target and a complaints policy that did not explain how to contact the ombudsman.
Personalised care
Care records included detailed information about communication, behaviour, visual impairment, daily routines and individual preferences. These records were reviewed monthly.
“The care records were reviewed on a monthly basis to ensure accuracy and to confirm they were still reflective of people's individual needs.” from the report
Good activities and communication
People had many internal and community activities, including adapted sports and trips. The home used tools such as Makaton, braille, Moon and an electronic choice machine.
“People at the service had a significant amount of internal and external activities they could participate in to allow them to lead a fulfilled life.” from the report
Supported staff team
Staff received regular training, supervision and handovers. Inspectors found systems for managers to monitor care and respond to staff and family feedback.
“There were governance systems to monitor care delivery and people had the chance to feedback on the service.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingWhen someone lacked capacity for a particular decision, the related best-interest decision was not always completed or fully recorded. CQC made a recommendation about following the relevant guidance.
“The associated best interest decision was not consistently completed in line with guidance or fully recorded.” from the report
Medicine storage records
minorThere were a small number of missing room and fridge temperature entries. One liquid medicine had not been dated when opened.
“We found a small number of omissions in the recording of room and fridge temperatures for the month of February 2017.” from the report
Fluid monitoring
needs fixingFor one person whose fluid intake was being measured, the chart did not state the person's fluid target. Inspectors said this could help staff encourage enough fluids.
“It was observed that a fluid intake target had not been identified on the fluid balance chart.” from the report
Complaints information
minorThe complaints policy did not explain how someone could contact the ombudsman if they wanted to take a complaint further. No complaints about the home had been recorded in the previous 12 months.
“The current policy in place for complaints did not contain information on how people could contact the ombudsman should they wish to escalate their complaint.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the recording of best-interest decisions since this inspection?
- 02How do you make sure room and medicine-fridge temperatures are recorded every day?
- 03How do you check that liquid medicines are dated when they are opened?
- 04How do you set and review fluid intake targets for people who need fluid monitoring?
- 05How can a resident or relative contact the ombudsman if they are unhappy with how a complaint is handled?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 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 InFocus Charity
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- March 2020Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2012.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.