CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Reach Wendover Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. They found arrangements for PPE, testing, social distancing, cleaning, safe admissions and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Reach Wendover Road was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about its infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced inspection on 4 February 2021. It was a targeted check of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than a full inspection of all aspects of care.
Inspectors found good infection control arrangements. These included masks and testing for visitors, social distancing, a good supply of PPE, staff training, regular cleaning and plans for managing an outbreak. Family contact was supported through video calls and email updates.
The overall rating and the Safe rating were both recorded as “Inspected but not rated”. This means the report gives findings about infection control but does not provide a new overall quality rating.
Family contact
During lockdown, the home helped people keep in touch with relatives through video calls and email updates.
“During the current lockdown the service had facilitated video calls to family members and the registered manager provided family members with email updates on their family member.” from the report
PPE and staff training
The home had PPE available and staff were trained in infection control, including handwashing and using PPE safely.
“The service had a good supply of personal protective equipment (PPE). This was kept stocked and replenished throughout the shift.” from the report
Cleaning and monitoring
The home had detailed cleaning schedules and audits to monitor infection control practice.
“Alongside this, there was a detailed and specific cleaning schedule in place for staff on each shift to complete and sign.” from the report
Recording of a testing decision
needs fixingFor some people who lacked capacity to decide about COVID-19 testing, the decision not to test had not initially been recorded as a best-interests decision. The records were completed after the inspection.
“This decision was not recorded as a best interests decision.” from the report
- 01How do you now record best-interests decisions about COVID-19 testing?
- 02How will my relative keep in contact with family if visits are restricted?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 04How do you manage social distancing and activities for residents who may become isolated?
- 05How often are infection control audits and cleaning checks completed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records and staff training issues to monitor.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 August 2018. The inspector looked at all five areas CQC rates: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, safety and quality records, and spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals.
The home was supporting nine people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, had enough staff and received their medicines safely. Staff supported people's health, communication, choices and independence. Care was described as kind, respectful and tailored to each person.
The home was rated Good in all five areas and overall. This was an improvement from the previous inspection in July 2017, when the overall rating was Requires Improvement and three areas required improvement. The earlier concern about following the Mental Capacity Act had been addressed.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs. Trained staff gave medicines at the right times and in the right amounts.
“People were supported by staffing ratios which enabled staff to meet people's specific needs, including any relating to diversity and/or special needs, safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. They promoted privacy, dignity and people's preferred ways of communicating.
“People were provided with caring and compassionate support. Staff were respectful, kind and sensitive when interacting with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's histories, goals, communication needs and choices. The home supported people to build independence and take part in activities.
“People had personalised care plans which ensured care was tailored to meet their individual and diverse needs.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
All five areas improved to Good. The previous concern about decisions made for people who lacked capacity had been addressed.
“At this inspection we found action had been taken to make the improvements necessary and the requirements of the regulation had been met.” from the report
Guidance for some medicines
needs fixingWritten instructions for some medicines used to help control behaviour may not have been detailed enough to ensure they were always given consistently. The manager agreed to review them.
“However, those PRN medicines given to support people to control their behaviours may need more detail to ensure they were always given in a consistent way.” from the report
People's money records
needs fixingThe accounting system was complex and one error had not been identified by the manager. The service agreed to review how people's money was recorded.
“However, the accounting system was quite complex and one error had been made and not identified by the manager.” from the report
Training and supervision
minorSome staff training was out of date, and the manager did not always meet the planned six-weekly supervision target. The report says training was being booked and appraisals were up to date.
“Some training was not up-to-date due to staffing shortages and illness. However, it was being booked and completed as quickly as possible.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the written guidance for medicines given when needed to control behaviour?
- 02How do you now check that people's personal money records are accurate?
- 03Have all staff completed the training and competency checks that were overdue at the inspection?
- 04How often do staff now receive supervision, and what happens if the six-week target is missed?
- 05Has the manager's application to become registered with CQC been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, with improvements checked against the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 August 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 Reach Wendover Road
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2013.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.