CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Wharf Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and staff understood how to keep people safe. Inspectors found some medicines had not been given at the planned times and said further checks were needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, choices and health needs were assessed. Staff supported people with food, drink and access to health professionals, although some fluid intake records may not have been accurate.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and considerate. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy, independence and everyday choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and histories and were reviewed when needs changed. The range of activities had reduced for a time because of an infection outbreak and staff changes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Relatives and staff said the home was open and focused on people's needs. A new manager had been appointed but was not yet registered, and the provider was developing its quality checks.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but some medicine timings and fluid records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 25 and 26 April 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines records, incident records, complaints, recruitment and training records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received personalised care and were treated with kindness and respect.
There were some issues to improve. Records showed that two people had not always received medicines at the planned times. Some fluid intake records may not have been accurate. The home took immediate action, and no harm was found.
The inspection was prompted by concerns about safety when eating and staffing levels. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Activities had reduced after an infection outbreak and staff changes, while recruitment was under way.
Kind relationships
People and relatives valued their relationships with staff. Inspectors found that staff were considerate and supported people with compassion.
“People told us the staff who cared for them were considerate and kind.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and histories. Staff used this information to provide individual support and involve relatives.
“People's risk assessments and care plans reflected their care needs, preferences and individual histories.” from the report
Safety and staffing
Staff understood people's risks and knew how to respond. During the inspection there were enough staff and people did not have to wait long for help.
“During the inspection we found there was enough staff to care for people and people did not have to wait long if they wanted assistance from staff.” from the report
Respect and choice
People were supported to make day-to-day decisions, maintain their independence and receive care in private.
“Staff gave us examples of how they promoted people's dignity and independence.” from the report
Medicine timing
needs fixingRecords showed that two people had not received medicines at the planned times. More guidance and checks were needed, although inspectors found no evidence of harm.
“There was no evidence of harm to people, but we found some further guidance was required to support staff to administer one person's medicines at the correct time.” from the report
Fluid records
needs fixingSome records of how much people drank may not have been accurate. The provider and manager took immediate steps to address this.
“There was no evidence of harm to people, but we found some recording of fluid intake may not be accurate.” from the report
Activities
minorThere had been a reduction in the number of interesting activities because of an infection outbreak and staff changes. The home was recruiting activities staff.
“There had been some recent reduction in the number of interesting things people could choose to do because of an infectious outbreak at the home and some staff changes.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A new manager had been appointed and was applying to become registered.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure medicines are given at the correct time?
- 02How do you check that fluid intake records are accurate?
- 03Has the recruitment of activities staff been completed, and what activities are currently available?
- 04Has the manager completed the application to become registered with the CQC?
- 05What changes have been made to window treatments to improve privacy in rooms overlooking the road?
This was an unannounced first comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that the home had strong infection control arrangements in its designated Covid-19 area.
This was an announced inspection on 4 December 2020. It was carried out because the home had been chosen as a designated setting for people leaving hospital with a positive Covid-19 status.
Inspectors looked only at the designated area on the second floor. They found separate access, trained staff, well-placed protective equipment and arrangements to reduce infection risks.
The inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full quality rating for the home.
Separate access
The designated area had separate routes for people and staff. This helped keep it apart from the rest of the home.
“People could access the designated area via a separate lift on the outside of the building.” from the report
Trained staff
A specific group of staff worked in the designated area and had training in PPE and infection control.
“A specific cohort of staff trained in Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use and infection control procedures was allocated to the designated area.” from the report
Infection control measures
PPE stations were placed throughout the area, including outside bedrooms. Ensuite bathrooms had automatic lights to reduce touch points.
“PPE stations had been placed at key points through the designated area including a station outside every bedroom.” from the report
Keeping in touch
Visitors could not enter the designated area, but people were supported to stay in contact with loved ones by video and telephone.
“People were being supported to maintain contact with their loved ones via video and telephone calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Is the second floor still used as a designated area, and how does this affect people living elsewhere in the home?
- 02How are staff trained and allocated to use PPE and follow infection control procedures?
- 03How are people and staff tested for Covid-19, and how are positive results managed?
- 04How can residents keep in contact with relatives if visitors cannot enter the designated area?
- 05What full inspection ratings apply to care, staffing, medicines, people's experiences and leadership, as these were not assessed in this report?
This was a focused inspection of infection prevention and control in the second-floor designated area; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 January 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.
Every inspection of The Wharf Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 August 2019.
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 an hour of Worcestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.