CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Waynes - Bridlington
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risks were not always managed effectively. Monitoring charts, care plans and accident records were not always detailed or complete, although medicines systems and building safety had improved.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always recorded. Food and fluid monitoring was not always robust, although staff training, supervision and access to healthcare had improved.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. People and relatives said staff were caring, consistent and knew people well.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report says people had personalised bedrooms, access to communal areas and good communication with relatives.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The new auditing system did not always identify or fix problems. Records remained insufficiently accurate, and the provider was still in breach of the good governance regulation.
What inspectors found, August 2023
The Waynes - Bridlington was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and some progress, but ongoing risks, record-keeping and management problems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 and 21 June 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and the home's audits.
The home had improved its medicines systems, cleanliness, building safety and staff support. People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Relatives also spoke positively about the consistent staff, who knew people well.
However, risks such as dehydration, malnutrition and physical behaviour were not always managed properly. Records were sometimes inaccurate or incomplete. The provider remained in breach of regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance.
The overall rating stayed at Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings carried over.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy with the support they received. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns.
“People told us they felt safe and were happy with the support they received.” from the report
Medicines improvements
People received medicines as prescribed, and clearer instructions and trained staff were in place. Some medicines records still needed improvement.
“There were now clear records instructing staff on how people's medicines were to be given to them, for example before or after food.” from the report
Consistent staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff who knew them well. Staff also said they felt supported by the management team.
“People were supported by a consistent team of staff who they had developed positive relationships with.” from the report
Healthcare communication
Relatives said staff identified health concerns promptly and kept them informed about appointments and changes.
“If there are any changes, they are on the phone straight away.” from the report
Risks were not consistently managed
seriousCare plans and monitoring charts did not always give staff clear guidance or show that action had been taken to reduce risks such as dehydration and malnutrition.
“When risks to people were identified, such as dehydration and malnutrition, the monitoring charts in place were not effective to ensure action was taken to mitigate the risks people faced.” from the report
Ongoing governance failures
seriousThe home's new auditing system did not reliably identify and address problems. Records about care, monitoring and recruitment were not always accurate or complete.
“The provider had failed to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service, mitigate risks relating to the health and safety of others, maintain accurate, complete and contemporaneous records.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
needs fixingRecords did not always show that people's capacity had been assessed or that decisions made for them were in their best interests.
“Records continued to not be in place to show people's capacity had been assessed and when best interest decisions had been made on their behalf.” from the report
Food and drink monitoring
needs fixingFurther work was needed to support people with memory impairments to make choices and to record food and fluid intake reliably.
“Although some improvements had been made to the mealtime experience, further work was required to promote choice for people with memory impairments and to effectively monitor people's dietary intake.” from the report
- 01How are you now recording and responding to risks such as dehydration, malnutrition and physical behaviour?
- 02How do you check that care plans and monitoring charts are accurate and give staff clear instructions?
- 03How are capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded for people who may lack capacity?
- 04What action has been taken to improve the staffing dependency tool and the gaps in the training matrix?
- 05How do you check that food and fluid intake records are complete and that people with memory impairments can make meal choices?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 2023 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 2022
The Waynes - Bridlington was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines and risk management, alongside kind relationships and people feeling safe.
Inspectors visited on 22 April, 4 May and 9 May 2022. The first visit was announced and the later visits were unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was not always safe. Risks such as falls, unsafe windows and building security were not properly managed. Medicines records were unclear, medicines were sometimes left for untrained staff, and there were not always suitably trained staff on duty. The home was also not clean on the first day of inspection.
People were positive about the kindness of staff and said they felt safe. However, records about people's needs, consent, nutrition and oral care were not always complete. Management checks had not found or fixed the problems. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2018 to Requires Improvement.
Kind staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff's kindness. Inspectors saw that staff knew people well and treated them respectfully.
“People and relatives spoke positively about the service and the kind nature of the staff team.” from the report
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe and well looked after.
“Yes I feel my relative is safe, I go away and feel she is safe and well looked after and I don't have to worry like I used to.” from the report
Healthcare support
People were supported to access healthcare professionals, including GPs and district nurses. Relatives said they were kept informed about appointments.
“They support with any health appointments and always keep us fully informed” from the report
Supportive staff culture
Staff said they felt supported by the management team and could approach managers when they needed help.
“Staff felt well supported by the management team and told us there was a 'family feel' to the service.” from the report
Risks were not properly managed
seriousRisk assessments did not always cover known risks, including falls, people leaving the building and unsafe windows. Visitor records were also not being completed.
“Risks to people were not always addressed. Risk assessments were not always in place when there was a known risk.” from the report
Medicines were not safe
seriousMedicines were sometimes left for untrained staff to give later. Records were unclear, and there were not always trained staff available to give as-needed medicines.
“Medicines were not managed safely. We were made aware of, medicines being left out for untrained staff to administer at a later time.” from the report
Training gaps
seriousSome staff did not have up-to-date medicines, first aid or other training. There were also gaps in competency checks and induction records.
“There was not always staff on shift with up to date medicines training.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems had not found or fixed problems with staffing, training, medicines, cleanliness and risk management. Records were not always accurate or complete.
“Governance systems were not effective. They had not identified or addressed the issues we found at inspection.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
needs fixingThe home was not always clean on the first inspection day. Inspectors found dirty window frames, cobwebs, stained cupboards and dust on handrails.
“The service was not always clean. Window frames were dirty and we found cobwebs in people's rooms.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to address the warning notices about risks, medicines and governance?
- 02How do you make sure every shift has staff with current medicines and first aid training?
- 03How are window safety, falls risks, people leaving the building and visitor records checked now?
- 04How do you check that medicines records are complete, legible and supported by current instructions?
- 05How do you monitor cleanliness, infection control and learning from accidents, incidents and external audits?
This began as a targeted infection prevention and control inspection and was widened to a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; the other ratings carried over from the 2018 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 July 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 The Waynes - Bridlington
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.
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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.