CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Wheelhouse
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood individual risks, medicines were given by trained staff, and there were suitable checks on the building and emergency arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training in areas including autism, epilepsy, medicines and positive behaviour support. People had access to health professionals, suitable food and drink, and support based on their individual needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw warm and trusting relationships between people and staff. Staff respected privacy, supported communication and encouraged people to make choices and develop daily living skills.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personal, detailed and regularly reviewed. People were supported to communicate, keep in touch with family and take part in activities linked to their interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The managers were viewed positively by staff, relatives and professionals. The home used audits, staff meetings and feedback to identify and act on improvements.
What inspectors found, November 2019
The Wheelhouse was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised support.
This was a planned inspection of a small care home for up to four people with learning disabilities and autism. Three people lived there at the time. The inspector visited on 30 September and 7 October 2019, observed care, checked records and spoke with staff, a relative and a professional.
Inspectors found that people were safe and received their medicines properly. Staff understood people's health needs, communication and behaviour support plans. There were enough trained staff, and the home had suitable risk checks and safety procedures.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported choice, independence, communication, health care, meals and activities. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. The home was described as well-led, with good teamwork, feedback and quality checks.
Good means the service met the CQC's standards in all five areas at this inspection. The previous inspection, published in November 2016, had also rated the service Good.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw people appearing relaxed and happy with staff they knew well. Staff noticed and responded to people's individual signs of comfort or distress.
“People appeared relaxed and happy around staff they knew well.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to choose food, activities and aspects of their daily lives. Staff encouraged people to build practical skills rather than doing everything for them.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People took part in activities based on their interests, including holidays, trips, swimming and horse riding. Some people were supported to use mobile phones for regular video calls with relatives.
“People were supported to engage in a variety of activities, based on their interests and preferences.” from the report
Strong staff preparation
Staff received induction, regular supervision and specialist training. Their skills were checked through questions and observations in areas such as medicines, choking risks and positive behaviour support.
“Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The management team reviewed accidents and incidents and changed support plans when lessons were identified. Inspectors found that incidents had reduced after staff recognised signs that one person was in pain.
“The number of incidents had decreased since these changes had been made.” from the report
Legal safeguards still pending
needs fixingThe manager had applied for legal safeguards for everyone, but only one application had been granted at the time of inspection. The outstanding applications were being reviewed and professionals were being contacted about timescales.
“The registered manager had applied for all people to have DoLS, but only one had been granted.” from the report
End of life planning incomplete
minorNo one needed end of life care during the inspection. The home had started discussing future wishes, but inspectors recorded that more work was needed to understand people's views.
“It was a good starting point but is a work in progress.” from the report
- 01What is the current position on the outstanding DoLS applications, and how are people's rights protected while they are being processed?
- 02How would you communicate with my relative and recognise when they are anxious, unhappy or in pain?
- 03What specialist training would staff supporting my relative receive, and how would you check their competence?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in planning future end of life wishes?
- 05How would you support my relative to develop independence and take part in activities they enjoy?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, safety and the premises; the previous inspection in 2016 had also rated all areas Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2019 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, November 2016
The Wheelhouse is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one medicines error recorded and communication technology needing improvement.
This was an announced inspection on 20 and 24 October 2016. One inspector reviewed care plans, medicines, accidents, staff recruitment and quality checks. They also spoke with the manager, one relative and three staff members.
The inspector could not speak directly with people living at the home. Instead, they observed how care was provided using a recognised observation method. The inspection found that people were safe, supported by trained staff and helped to make choices about their care and daily life.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This means the inspector found the home was meeting the relevant requirements and providing a good standard of care at the time of the inspection.
Personalised support
Staff knew people's routines, preferences and sources of anxiety. Care plans were developed over time and updated when people's needs changed.
“People had care and support plans which were personal to them and reflected their individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people being treated with kindness and patience. Staff respected privacy and encouraged people to do as much as they could for themselves.
“We saw at this inspection people were treated with kindness, warmth and respect.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were given time to make decisions about food, clothing, activities and personal care. Staff used suitable communication aids and supported achievable steps towards independence.
“People were given time and space to make a decision and were not rushed by staff.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager worked alongside people and staff and used feedback, incidents and quality checks to plan improvements.
“The provider and registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision.” from the report
Medicines error
needs fixingInspectors found one medicines error. No harm occurred, and the provider investigated it and gave the staff member extra training, but families may want to understand what safeguards are now in place.
“Following the identification of one error an investigation into the circumstances had been completed.” from the report
Difficult internet calling
minorInternet calling was available to help people keep in touch with people who lived far away, but it was not working well. The manager was looking for alternatives.
“However, the practicalities of this method of communication were problematic and the registered manager was identifying alternatives.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to prevent another medicines error?
- 02What extra training was provided after the medicines error, and how was staff competence checked?
- 03What alternative arrangements are now available for people who need help keeping in touch with family over long distances?
- 04How are people and their families involved in reviewing and changing care plans?
- 05How are activities adapted when someone becomes anxious or no longer enjoys an activity?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service and all five rating areas, but inspectors could not speak directly with people living at the home and used observation instead. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 November 2016 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 Wheelhouse
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful 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.