CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wallace House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, effective infection control, safe medicines management and regular risk assessments. People were protected from abuse and incidents were investigated.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff were trained and supported, and people received help with eating, drinking and healthcare. The building had also been refurbished to support people's needs and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- A separate rating was not given in the report. Inspectors recorded positive feedback about the care and said people and relatives were involved in care planning.
- Responsive?
- Good
- A rating for Responsive was not given in the report, and no detailed Responsive findings were included.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager had effective audits and quality checks, used feedback to make improvements and understood their legal responsibilities. The home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17 or Regulation 9.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Wallace House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 3 August 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and effective checks on care quality. People and relatives gave very positive feedback.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with breaches relating to person-centred care and good governance. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach of those regulations. The report says some question ratings were carried over because this was a focused inspection.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, training and staff support were in place.
“There was enough competent staff to meet service user needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were checked regularly, stored securely and given by staff whose competence had been assessed.
“Medicines were managed safely. The registered manager carried out regular checks on people's medicines” from the report
Positive care
People and relatives were very positive about the care. They were involved in care planning and staff supported people's independence and interests.
“People and their relatives were very positive about the care provided.” from the report
Improved management
The home had embedded audits and checks covering areas such as care plans, risks, staffing and welfare. Feedback was used to improve the service.
“Effective quality and assurance systems were fully embedded within the service” from the report
Improved environment
Many communal and private areas had been refurbished. The environment included visual and sensory features to support people living with dementia.
“The building had undergone a series of refurbishments; hallways, rooms and communal areas had been freshly decorated.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check that staffing levels remain suitable for my relative's changing needs?
- 02How will you keep us informed about any further improvements to the garden and other areas of the building?
- 03How are care plans reviewed with people and relatives when needs, choices or risks change?
- 04How does the red folder system ensure that important medical information is passed to hospital staff?
- 05What feedback can families give, and how will we be told what action the home takes in response?
This was a focused inspection following the previous Requires Improvement rating; Safe, Effective and Well-led were reported as Good, while some other question ratings were carried over because they were not inspected separately. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 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, November 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks from staffing, person-centred care and weak quality checks, although some safety and care records had improved.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection. Inspectors visited on 11 October 2022 and completed some work remotely on 25 October. They spoke with people, staff and health and social care professionals, observed care and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found too few staff at times, poor staff deployment, limited engagement with people, problems with mealtimes and parts of the building needing repair or improvement.
There were also positive findings. Risks were assessed and managed, recruitment was safe, medicines were mostly managed safely, and improvements had been made to mental capacity and nutrition records. However, quality checks had not identified or dealt with several problems quickly enough.
The service remained Requires Improvement, as it had been at the previous inspection. The provider was asked for an action plan, and the CQC said it would monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
Risk management
Care records contained guidance about people's risks, and staff took action to reduce avoidable harm. Incidents and near misses were reviewed for patterns and learning.
“Risks were managed to ensure people were kept safe and staff took action to mitigate the risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Mental capacity practice
Records about mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions had improved since the previous inspection. The report says legal safeguards were in place where needed.
“Records showed mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were appropriately made and documented.” from the report
Working with professionals
Staff worked with GPs, district nurses, speech and language therapists and social workers. Referrals and communication helped address people's care needs.
“There was communication between staff and visiting professionals, and staff followed guidance provided to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The provider followed its recruitment checks correctly. Staff also received training, supervision and appraisal.
“The provider had processes in place to ensure the safe recruitment of staff and these had been correctly followed.” from the report
Staffing and attention
seriousThere were not enough staff to provide timely, personal care. Inspectors saw people sitting silently or without enough engagement and stimulation.
“There were insufficient staff to support people in a timely and person-centred way.” from the report
Person-centred care
seriousCare was described as task-focused rather than centred on each person's needs and preferences. People were not always listened to, engaged with or kept occupied.
“Care was task-centred rather than person-centred.” from the report
Mealtimes
needs fixingSome people were not encouraged to eat or offered alternatives, and staff did not always help people choose or understand their food. This mattered particularly for people at risk of losing weight.
“People were not offered an alternative if they did not want their meal.” from the report
Building and equipment
needs fixingParts of the home showed wear and tear. Some wheelchairs were marked and unclean, and some rooms and communal areas needed decoration.
“The building was showing signs of wear and tear.” from the report
Quality monitoring
seriousAudits did not identify or deal with problems quickly enough. Inspectors found shortfalls in staffing, medicines, person-centred care, infection control, communication and the environment.
“The provider did not have effective systems in place to effectively monitor and improve the quality of the service to ensure positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Medicines timing
needs fixingMedicines were mostly managed safely, but one person's medicine was not always given at the right time. The report also says follow-up actions from medicines audits were not always completed promptly.
“Audits identified where improvements were required. We noted these identified follow up actions were not always completed in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01How many staff are planned for each shift, and how do you check that staffing and deployment are meeting people's care and social needs?
- 02What has changed at mealtimes so people receive encouragement, suitable choices and help with eating when needed?
- 03How do you make sure temporary and agency staff understand each person's care needs and any time-specific medicines?
- 04Which refurbishment and cleaning improvements have been completed since the inspection, and what remains outstanding?
- 05How are your audits now checking that people receive person-centred care and that identified actions are completed promptly?
This was a focused follow-up inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 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 Wallace House
8 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2021Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Gateshead
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 £950 to £1,240 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.