CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Walcott House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, with suitable staffing, risk assessments, safeguarding arrangements and medicine procedures. Inspectors found shortfalls in labelling topical creams and some infection control practices, but judged the risks to be low and found no evidence of impact on people.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans, suitable staff training, support with food and drink, and help to access healthcare. Staff supported people to make choices and followed best-interest processes where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind, patient and dedicated. Inspectors saw positive relationships, respect for privacy and support for people to build independence and take part in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, communication styles, preferences and interests. People were supported with activities, community access, complaints and maintaining contact with their families.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The registered manager was supportive and relatives gave positive feedback, but governance checks were not consistently robust. Policies were not always current, infection control and laundry were not adequately monitored, and supervision was not always completed in line with the provider's policy.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Walcott House was rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in oversight and rated well-led Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited on 14 and 21 January 2020. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found that people received personalised support from staff who knew them well. People had appropriate staffing, support with healthcare and meals, and opportunities for activities, independence and family contact.
The well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Audits and checks did not always identify or address problems with infection control, laundry, topical creams and up-to-date policies. The home took immediate action, but inspectors said the improved systems were not yet embedded or shown to be effective over time.
Personalised care
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, preferences and communication. Staff supported people to develop skills and independence.
“People received person centred care that was tailored to meet their individuals needs and levels of support they required.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. Relatives and people described staff as caring, friendly and patient.
“People were supported by a dedicated and passionate team of staff.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to take part in activities suited to their interests and to access the local community. Staff also helped people maintain family relationships.
“People had access to a range of activities in-keeping with their interests and were supported to access the local and wider community.” from the report
Flexible staffing
Staffing levels were adjusted when people needed extra support, including for appointments and planned activities.
“People had access to appropriate levels of staff to meet their needs.” from the report
Weak management checks
needs fixingAudits did not always identify problems or provide enough assurance that improvements would last. Inspectors said the new systems were not yet embedded.
“Systems and processes to monitor service delivery were not always effective.” from the report
Infection control and laundry
needs fixingLaundry was not always handled in line with national guidance, and infection control was not consistently monitored. The provider took action, including replacing damaged flooring during the inspection.
“On day one of the inspection we noted some infection control practices were not consistently managed to ensure all risks of cross infection were minimised.” from the report
Topical cream records
needs fixingOpen-date labels were not used consistently for two people's prescribed topical creams. This meant inspectors could not be sure the creams were managed according to the manufacturer's guidance.
“open date labels had not been consistently used, therefore we could not be assured two people's prescribed topical creams had been managed in line with the manufacturer's guidelines.” from the report
End of life plans
minorNo one needed end of life care during the inspection, but the home's new end of life care plans had not yet been completed.
“End of life care plans were in the process of being implemented across the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the checks on topical creams, and how do you now confirm that open dates and expiry dates are recorded?
- 02How are laundry and other infection control practices monitored now, and when was the latest audit?
- 03How will you show that the new governance systems are working consistently over time?
- 04Have all current policies, including the complaints procedure, been updated and made available to staff?
- 05Has an end of life care plan been discussed and completed for the person I am considering placing here?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating remained Good, while the well-led rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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, May 2017
Walcott House rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with two records and complaints-process issues fixed after the visit.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 6 April 2017. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and care staff. They observed care and reviewed four care plans, medicines records, staff records, complaints, accidents, audits and other documents.
The home supported up to nine adults with learning disabilities, including people with complex needs. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training and good support with health, meals, independence and community activities.
People were treated with patience and respect. Care plans were personalised, activities reflected people's choices, and relatives said staff communicated well and dealt with concerns.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas. It remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection in July 2014.
Enough staff and safe medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to provide one-to-one support and help people go out. Medicines were administered by trained staff and checked regularly.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs. Staff recruitment procedures were adequate and ensured only suitable staff were employed.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff had induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Their training covered areas relevant to the people living at the home.
“Staff told us they had access to a range of training courses such as in first aid, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, mental health, challenging behaviour and epilepsy.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff communicated well and responded patiently to people's needs and feelings. People were supported to make choices and maintain independence.
“Staff were observed to treat people with patience and understanding.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans focused on each person's needs and preferences. People had individual activity timetables, including college, day centres, work placements and community activities.
“Each person had a weekly timetable of activities which were bespoke to each person.” from the report
Good management checks
The management team sought views from people, relatives and staff. Audits were used to identify and address shortfalls.
“There were a number of systems of audit to check the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Toilet restriction was not initially recorded
needs fixingA ground floor toilet was locked because of a safety risk, but the reasons, assessment and monitoring were not recorded at the time. The manager completed assessments after the inspection and supplied them to inspectors.
“However, there were no recorded assessments or reasoning or records of monitoring the person's behaviour with regard to restricting access to the toilet.” from the report
Complaints procedure was not clearly available
minorRelatives knew how to raise concerns, but it was unclear how they knew about the complaints procedure because it had not been supplied to them or displayed. The manager said this was corrected after the inspection.
“It was unclear how relatives knew about the complaint procedure as it was not supplied to them or displayed.” from the report
- 01How are restrictions on access to the kitchen, toilets or other areas assessed, recorded and reviewed?
- 02How will you monitor whether any restriction remains necessary and the least restrictive option?
- 03Where can residents and relatives see or obtain the current complaints procedure?
- 04What activities and community opportunities are currently available for each person?
- 05How are people's communication needs used when asking about their views, care choices or concerns?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 2017 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 Walcott House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 2011.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West 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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.