CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Inwood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, reviewed risk assessments, safe medicines systems and suitable infection control arrangements. People and relatives said people felt safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider had improved its quality systems and was no longer in breach of the regulations checked at the previous inspection. However, some safeguarding incidents had not been notified to CQC, and the new manager had not yet applied to become registered.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care, but well-led remained Requires Improvement because some incidents were not notified to CQC.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. One inspector visited on 28 September 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff, the manager and health professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, incident records, quality checks and staff recruitment files.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, regular risk reviews and safe medicines management. Infection control arrangements were also satisfactory. People and relatives said people felt safe and had no concerns about the care.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. The provider had improved its systems and was no longer in breach of the regulations checked at the previous inspection. However, some safeguarding incidents had not been notified to CQC, so inspectors recommended further checks of the governance system.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good. This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only. The other key question ratings were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff to provide care and support. Recruitment had filled staffing gaps, and required pre-employment checks had been completed.
“People were being cared for by sufficient numbers of staff. The provider had carried out successful recruitment activity and continued to recruit more staff where needed.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed and reviewed by healthcare professionals. Earlier problems with recording when creams were opened had been corrected.
“Medicines were managed safely. People had their medicines as prescribed and we saw evidence of medicines reviews from the GP regularly.” from the report
Good infection control
The home was clean, had suitable cleaning systems and used protective equipment appropriately. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed.
“The home was clean and smelt fresh. Systems were in place to make sure all areas of the home had a regular thorough clean.” from the report
Positive feedback about the new manager
Relatives, staff and professionals described the manager as approachable, calm and supportive. Staff said morale had improved.
“Staff and relatives told us the new manager was visible, approachable and calm in their approach.” from the report
Some safeguarding incidents were not reported to CQC
needs fixingInspectors found that some safeguarding incidents had not been notified to CQC, even though staff had taken immediate action. They recommended stronger monitoring of incidents and events.
“We did find some incidents of safeguarding that had not been notified. Whilst the staff had taken immediate action to deal with the incident, CQC had not been notified.” from the report
No registered manager was in post
needs fixingA manager was running the home, but had not submitted an application to become registered at the time of inspection. The provider said it was working with the manager on this.
“The new manager had not submitted an application to become registered. The owner told us they were working with the new manager to submit an application.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every safeguarding incident is correctly notified to CQC?
- 02What progress has been made with the manager's application to become registered?
- 03What actions remain on the monthly improvement plan, and how are they checked?
- 04How are incidents and events reviewed for repeated themes or missed notifications?
- 05What ratings apply to Effective, Caring and Responsive, since these areas were not inspected in this report?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key questions were not inspected and their ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 October 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, February 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but important safety and management systems were not reliable.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 28 October 2021. Inspectors looked at whether the home was safe and well-led. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and a professional, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment, incident and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Risks were not always identified or managed properly. Records for food and fluid intake were incomplete, guidance for one-to-one support was missing, and staff were not always using the correct COVID-19 protective equipment or testing as required.
The home had enough staff at the inspection, safe recruitment checks, kind care and good communication with families. However, quality checks had not found or fixed repeated problems. Some safeguarding incidents and a serious injury had not been reported to CQC.
The overall rating stayed at Requires Improvement, for the second consecutive rated inspection. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Kind care
People and relatives described staff as caring, patient and kind. They said they were happy with the care provided.
“People and relatives told us they experienced good care provided by a team of staff who had a caring and kind approach.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff at the visit, and the required pre-employment checks had been completed.
“People were being cared for by enough staff. We observed staff responded to people in a timely way.” from the report
Family communication
People and relatives said they were involved in care and kept informed about changes. Staff also felt able to share concerns and ideas.
“People and relatives were asked for their views and involved in care provided.” from the report
Clean home and managed visits
The home was clean, with routines for sanitising areas. Visitors were tested and given protective equipment before entering.
“The home was clean, and staff had schedules to complete to ensure all areas were routinely sanitised.” from the report
Risks were not reliably managed
seriousSome risks had not been identified, including the risk of one person leaving the home alone. Monitoring records for food and fluids were also incomplete or inaccurate.
“Risk management was not consistently safe. We observed some risks had not been identified so that suitable management plans could be put in place.” from the report
COVID-19 safety controls
seriousStaff were not always wearing the correct PPE or testing as required. The infection control policy did not include guidance for working safely during a COVID-19 outbreak.
“We were not assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely. On the day of our site visit we observed staff were not wearing the correct PPE.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingAudits had identified gaps in food and fluid charts, but the same problem was still present at the inspection. Checks also missed creams that had not been dated when opened.
“Quality monitoring was not effective in driving improvements in quality and safety.” from the report
Incidents not reported to CQC
seriousSafeguarding incidents and one serious injury had not been notified to CQC, despite this being required by law.
“We found incidents of safeguarding and one serious injury that had not been notified to CQC.” from the report
Medicine checks
needs fixingRequired pharmacist checks had not been completed for medicines given covertly. Some topical creams did not have their opening dates recorded.
“For people who had medicines administration covertly we observed whilst permissions to do so were in place staff had not made the required check with a pharmacist.” from the report
- 01What actions have you taken to make sure every person's risks are identified, recorded and understood by staff?
- 02How are you checking that food and fluid records are complete and accurate every day?
- 03What has changed in your COVID-19 PPE, testing and outbreak procedures since this inspection?
- 04How do your audits now check medicines given covertly and the opening dates of topical creams?
- 05How are you making sure safeguarding incidents and serious injuries are reported to CQC correctly?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three key-question ratings were carried over from previous comprehensive inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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 Inwood House
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 October 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.