CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Warren
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were safe. This included visitor checks, protective equipment, social distancing, safe admissions, premises layout and hygiene.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
The Warren was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and visiting arrangements were safe.
This was a targeted inspection on 27 October 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic. The visit was announced.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors. Visits were booked at set times, visitors were checked for symptoms and temperature, and testing was offered. People at the end of their lives could have visitors enter their rooms directly from outside.
The home had plans for emergencies, an infection control champion and ways for people to keep in touch with relatives. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention, protective equipment, social distancing, admissions and hygiene measures were being managed safely.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Organised visiting
Visits were booked at suitable times, with designated visiting times and named visitors for each person.
“The service was booking visitors in at a specific time that suited people.” from the report
Visitor safety checks
Visitors had their temperature taken and were asked about symptoms. They could also choose to have an immediate Covid-19 test.
“Before visitors entered the main building, they had their temperature taken and were asked a series of questions to ensure they had no symptoms of Covid-19.” from the report
End-of-life visiting
People at the end of their lives could receive visitors directly through their rooms, avoiding other parts of the home.
“People who were at the end of their lives could have their visitors enter their rooms directly from the outside to avoid entering other areas of the home.” from the report
Emergency planning
The home had contingency plans for supporting people in three separate areas and had recently tested the arrangements.
“The service had emergency contingency plans in place to support people within three separate areas of the home if necessary.” from the report
Infection control leadership
A dedicated infection control champion kept up to date with infection control practices and procedures.
“The service had a dedicated infection control champion who kept updated on infection control practices and procedures.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently booked, checked and supported when they arrive?
- 02Is Covid-19 or other infection testing still offered to visitors, and how are the results managed?
- 03How can relatives visit someone who is at the end of their life without entering other areas of the home?
- 04How often are the emergency contingency plans tested, and what changes were made after the most recent test?
- 05Who is currently responsible for infection control, and how are their practices and procedures kept up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-organised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over two days. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care files, staff records, training records and service policies.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, respected and supported. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and people received help with food, healthcare and activities.
The home had made substantial improvements since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. Care plans and risk assessments were updated, staffing was increased, activities were expanded and stronger audits were introduced. The four previous regulatory breaches had been resolved.
Inspectors found some recruitment paperwork problems involving three staff members. The manager began auditing staff files during the inspection. After the visit, the registered manager stopped working at the home and the provider was spending more time there while considering a new manager.
Personalised care
Care plans and risk assessments had been extensively updated. They included detailed information about people's health, preferences and daily support.
“Extensive and detailed personalised care plans and risk assessments were in place.” from the report
Activities and involvement
The home had introduced a broad programme of activities, including community trips, exercise, cooking, quizzes and arts and crafts.
“An extensive activities programme had been implemented which provided people with physical and emotional stimulation.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect. People and relatives also spoke positively about the care.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect when helping them with daily living tasks.” from the report
Improved oversight
Audits covered care plans, risks, incidents, staffing, infection control and health and safety. Actions were followed up when problems were found.
“Where actions were needed, these had been followed up.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingInspectors found issues with the recruitment process for three staff members, including start dates and paperwork received before starting work. An audit of new starters' files began during the inspection.
“We did find certain issues with three staff members recruitment procedure, with regards to start dates and receipt of paperwork prior to starting.” from the report
Change in leadership
minorThe registered manager left after the inspection. The provider was spending more time at the home while deciding on a new manager, so families should ask about current leadership arrangements.
“However, following our inspection the registered manager ceased working at The Warren.” from the report
- 01Who is currently managing the home, and how are leadership responsibilities covered while a new manager is considered?
- 02What did the audit of all new staff files find, and how do you make sure paperwork and checks are completed before staff start?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty during the morning, afternoon and night, and how do you respond to sickness or higher dependency needs?
- 04Which activities would suit my relative, and how often can they receive one-to-one support or go into the local community?
- 05How will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed if their health, eating, drinking or mobility changes?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises, because of the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.
Every inspection of The Warren
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 2017.
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.