CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wadeville
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risk assessments and management plans were not always individual, current or detailed enough. Staffing was not always effectively deployed, and one as-required medicine record did not explain why the medicine was not given.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The building and equipment were not always well maintained or suited to people’s needs. Staff had relevant training, but supervision records were not maintained and some health reviews were still outstanding.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect, and staff supported their choices, independence, privacy and cultural or spiritual needs.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans were person-centred but some reviews and daily records were incomplete. Activities were limited because the activities coordinator role was vacant, and some records did not meet people’s communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The management and audit systems did not identify or correct several safety, care planning, medicine, premises and record-keeping problems. There was a clear management structure and staff worked with outside professionals.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but risks, building repairs, records and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered in December 2021. Inspectors visited without notice on 28 and 30 December 2022. They spoke with relatives, staff and managers, observed care and checked care, recruitment and management records.
People were generally treated kindly and with dignity. Staff supported people with daily care, choices, food, healthcare and activities. However, some people’s risk plans, care plans, emergency evacuation plans and health records were out of date or not detailed enough.
The home also had several maintenance problems. These included broken bathroom and kitchen items, worn furniture and rooms needing decoration. Activities were limited after the activities coordinator left, and some information was not provided in formats that met people’s communication needs.
The overall rating and the ratings for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. The provider breached three regulations, and CQC asked for an action plan and said it would monitor progress and return to inspect again.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff respected people’s privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“We saw staff engaged in conversations with people in a relaxed and natural manner.” from the report
Support with health needs
Staff helped people attend healthcare appointments and worked with health and social care professionals.
“People's care records included evidence of regular contact with health care professionals for example, the GP, dentist and nurse.” from the report
Safeguarding arrangements
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report suspected abuse. The home also had systems for accidents and incidents.
“Staff were aware of the action to take if they suspected someone had been abused including reporting their concerns to the manager and the local authority safeguarding team.” from the report
Staff recruitment and training
The provider completed background checks before staff started. Training covered areas relevant to people’s needs.
“The provider carried out satisfactory background checks for all staff before they started working.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about clothing, food, activities and daily tasks, as far as they could.
“People were supported to maintain their independence.” from the report
Risk plans were not reliable
seriousSome risk assessments were copied between people, lacked clear guidance and were not up to date. Emergency evacuation plans were overdue for review.
“People's risk assessments and risk management plans were not always effective.” from the report
Repairs and condition of the home
seriousSeveral fixtures and appliances were broken, furniture was worn and some rooms needed decoration. There was no sensory room.
“People were not provided in a well-equipped, well-furnished and well-maintained environment which met their needs.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits failed to identify several problems with care plans, risk records, medicines, repairs and other records. This was a breach of regulation.
“The systems in place to understand and address the quality and safety issues within the service were not operating effectively.” from the report
Care records needed updating
needs fixingSome care plan reviews, health action plans and health passports were outstanding. Daily records were too brief to show clearly whether planned support had been given.
“However, some care plan reviews and updates were outstanding, this required improvement.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingThe activities coordinator role had been vacant for several months. This reduced the planned indoor activities available to people.
“However, there was no sensory room when people required, the activities coordinator had left a couple of months ago and their position was vacant, which limited the indoor planned activities for all people.” from the report
Communication records
needs fixingNot all care records were available in formats suited to people’s communication needs.
“However, not all people's care records were made available in formats that met their needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard and this required improvement.” from the report
- 01Have all residents’ risk assessments and personal emergency evacuation plans now been reviewed and rewritten with individual guidance?
- 02Which repairs and replacements identified by inspectors have been completed, including the bathroom, kitchen, oven, toilet, furniture and bedroom decoration?
- 03Has the activities coordinator vacancy been filled, and what regular activities are now available indoors and in the community?
- 04How are care plan reviews, health action plans and daily care records checked to make sure they are complete and current?
- 05How are communication records provided in formats that each person can understand?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home’s premises and care, covering all five CQC questions and the principles of Right support, right care, right culture. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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.
Every inspection of Wadeville
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2021.
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 Bexley
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 £1,250 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.