CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 51 Wellington Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe and received medicines when they needed them. Staff were safely recruited and there were enough familiar staff, although records of medicines returned to the pharmacy had not previously been kept and legionella checks had not been completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed, staff received induction, supervision and training, and people were supported with food, healthcare and daily choices. People's consent was not always clearly recorded, but consent forms were printed during the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and treated them well. Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that people were supported with dignity, privacy, independence and decision-making.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and reviewed regularly. People were supported to follow hobbies, keep important relationships, access the community and raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People and staff spoke positively about the management. However, quality and safety checks were not always recorded, some best practice was not fully reflected in the records, and the provider's oversight needed to be clearer.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good overall, with kind and person-centred care, but the home’s leadership and quality checks require improvement.
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. One inspector spoke with four people, the assistant manager and a care worker. They reviewed care records, medicine records, a staff recruitment file, training records and management documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found that people felt safe, received their medicines, had enough familiar staff and were supported to make choices about their daily lives. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Quality checks were not always recorded, and some important risks and decisions were not fully documented. The assistant manager took action during and after the inspection, including assessing legionella risks and introducing records for medicines returned to the pharmacy.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection. However, the well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement because management oversight and recording systems needed to be developed.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them well. Inspectors saw warm and familiar relationships between people and staff.
“People told us staff treated them well and were always kind.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to decide how to spend their time, prepare food and drinks, go out and maintain their independence.
“People made choices about how they spent their day and told us it was completely up to them how they spent their time.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and responded to changes in their choices and needs.
“Care plans were in place that were detailed and based on the needs and preferences of each individual.” from the report
Quality checks were not fully recorded
needs fixingThe home had some monitoring systems, but checks such as medicine reviews were not always recorded. The provider's oversight was not clearly evidenced.
“Some systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service to help ensure people received good quality care, but these checks could be further developed and recorded.” from the report
Some safety records needed improving
needs fixingThere had been no legionella checks before the inspection, and the process for deciding when window restrictors were needed was not formally recorded. The assistant manager provided evidence of a legionella risk assessment after the inspection.
“We found however that there had not been any checks undertaken with regards to legionella.” from the report
Consent was not always documented
minorPeople were involved in daily decisions and said they consented to their support. However, the records did not always clearly show this.
“People's consent however was not always clearly recorded.” from the report
- 01What records are now kept for weekly medicines returned to the pharmacy, and who checks them?
- 02How often are legionella risks checked and reviewed now?
- 03How are decisions about window restrictors assessed and recorded for each person?
- 04How do you record and review each person's consent to their care and support?
- 05What quality checks does the provider now complete, and how is their involvement recorded?
This was a planned inspection that looked at all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Good, while the well-led rating had fallen from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 February 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, July 2017
Mrs Patricia Pauline Milligan - 51 Wellington Road was rated Good, with kind and personalised care but some records and improvement checks could be stronger.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 11 April 2017. The inspector spoke with seven people living at the home, four staff members and the manager. They observed daily support and checked medicines, care plans, staff training, health and safety records, and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People said they felt safe, knew staff well and were listened to. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable support with health and medicines, individual care plans, and good relationships between staff and residents.
The home remained Good, matching its previous inspection rating. Inspectors noted some areas to improve, including recording when medicines were given late, written guidance for 'as required' medicines, the condition of one bathroom, and the way quality checks and people's feedback were recorded.
People felt safe
Residents said they felt safe and confident that staff would listen to concerns. Inspectors found safeguarding training and safety checks for the building and equipment.
“People told us that they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Kind, familiar staff
The staff team had worked at the home for many years and knew residents' needs and preferences well. Inspectors saw trusting relationships and support that respected people's choices.
“Staff had built good relationships with people and provided individual support to meet their needs.” from the report
Good support with health
People received help with physical and mental health needs, medical appointments and medicines. Staff understood the support recorded in care plans.
“People received the support they needed to monitor their physical and mental health and with their medication.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care, food, activities and home. They could use the house as their own home and go out independently where it was safe.
“People were able to make decisions for themselves with advice and support from staff when needed.” from the report
Individual care planning
Care plans described each person's needs and preferences, were reviewed regularly and were discussed with residents. People were offered the chance to agree to their plans.
“Care plans were individual and contained assessments of the person's needs and clear guidance on how to support the person in the way they needed and preferred.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingOne person's morning medicine was given late. Inspectors said recording this on the medicine administration sheet would reduce the risk of errors.
“Recording this on the medication administration sheet would further reduce the risk of any errors occurring.” from the report
Written medicine guidance
needs fixingThere was initially no detailed written guidance for 'as required' medicines. The provider later sent inspectors a protocol and audit form, so families should ask how these are now used.
“However no detailed written guidance was in place.” from the report
Bathroom condition
minorA top-floor bathroom looked shabby. The manager said there were plans to replace it and make it more accessible for people with mobility difficulties.
“A top floor bathroom was looking shabby and the manager explained there were plans in place to replace this” from the report
Quality records
minorPeople's feedback forms contained limited information, and inspectors said it would help to keep clearer records of quality checks and planned improvements.
“Keeping simple records of the quality assurance checks carried out and the plans made for improvement would be beneficial in ensuring the quality of the service remained good.” from the report
Everyday living skills
minorInspectors suggested giving people more regular opportunities to help with shopping, washing and cooking, if they wished, to support everyday living skills.
“This would help people to learn or retain everyday living skills should they wish to do so.” from the report
- 01How are late medicine doses now recorded, and how do you check that records are complete?
- 02What written guidance and checks are now used for 'as required' medicines?
- 03Was the top-floor bathroom replaced or made more accessible after the inspection?
- 04How do you record residents' views and show what action was taken as a result?
- 05How are residents offered regular opportunities to help with shopping, washing and cooking if they want to?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 July 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 51 Wellington Road
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Wirral
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 £1,230 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.