CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Walsingham House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but safety checks, medicines guidance and risk records needed improvement.
The inspection took place on 14 February 2020, with activity starting on 13 February. One inspector spoke with all four people living at the home, staff, the manager and three relatives. Records about care, risks, medicines, health and safety, and how the home was managed were also checked.
People generally felt safe and were supported by staff who knew them well. Staff were kind, respectful and helped people make choices, stay independent, eat well, access healthcare and take part in activities. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good.
The home was not consistently safe or well-led. Some risks did not have written management plans, fire drills had not taken place, and staff had not followed the guidance for a medicine skin patch. Infection control issues were also found, and some audits had failed to identify these problems. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful staff
People appeared relaxed with staff and felt cared for. Staff respected privacy and dignity, including knocking before entering bedrooms.
“People were relaxed in the presence of staff and sat with them in communal areas of the home.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People could choose what they ate and drank, and their nutritional needs were monitored. They could access a range of healthcare services when needed.
“People had choices about what they ate and drank. All four people told us they enjoyed the food.” from the report
Personalised activities
Staff knew people's interests and supported them with activities and outings, including drawing, bowling, cinema trips and meals out.
“People were supported to take part in activities and pursue hobbies.” from the report
Incomplete risk plans
seriousSome risks had not been assessed or written into care records. This included people going into the community without staff and the use of bed rails without a related risk assessment.
“some risks had not been identified and did not have risk management plans for staff to refer to.” from the report
Medicine skin patch guidance
seriousStaff had not followed the manufacturer's instructions for a medicine skin patch. Skin sites were not given the required rest time and body maps were not used.
“This meant skin sites had not been given the required 'rest time' before being used again.” from the report
Fire and infection controls
needs fixingFire drills had not taken place. Inspectors also found damaged bed rail covers, bins that could increase infection risks, mops not hung to dry and a pet cage needing better cleaning.
“However, fire drills had not taken place.” from the report
Checks did not find problems
needs fixingThe provider had audits, but some did not identify the safety, medicine and infection control issues found during the inspection.
“However, some checks and audits had not identified issues we found during our inspection visit.” from the report
- 01What risk management plans are now in place for people who go into the community without staff?
- 02How do staff now record skin patch sites and make sure the required rest time is followed?
- 03Have fire-scenario drills been completed for all staff, and can you show us the records?
- 04What changes have been made to the damaged bed rail covers, waste bins, pet care and mop storage?
- 05How do your current audits make sure that safety and medicines problems are found promptly?
This was a planned inspection of all five key questions, including people's experiences, staff practice, care and risk records, medicines, health and safety, and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, although some care records lacked important detail.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 19 July 2017. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the registered manager. They also reviewed care files, medicines, daily records, accident records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People felt safe and relatives were positive about the care. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them stay connected with family, activities and healthcare.
The report says the previous Effective rating of Requires Improvement had improved to Good. Inspectors found that mental capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards responsibilities were now understood. However, some care plans and risk assessments did not contain enough detail, and the manager agreed to correct this.
Stable staff team
There were enough staff, and the team knew the people living at the home well. Inspectors saw staff had time to talk with people as well as provide care.
“People received their care and support from an established and stable staff team who knew the people they supported well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. They protected people's privacy and supported their everyday choices and independence.
“People and relatives described staff as kind, friendly and attentive.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life histories, likes, dislikes and support needs. Staff supported people to enjoy their interests and maintain important relationships.
“Care records were centred around the individual needs and wants of the person.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. Records for medicines given when needed were completed properly and had clear guidance.
“We saw medicines were managed, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Improved legal safeguards
The provider had improved its understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards since the previous inspection. Two applications had been authorised.
“During this inspection we found the rights of people who lived at the home were protected.” from the report
Missing detail in care records
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments lacked enough detail. This included recommendations from a healthcare specialist about reducing choking risks, although staff knew how to support the person safely.
“However, we also found care plan audits had not identified that some plans and risk assessments lacked detail.” from the report
Best-interest instructions were unclear
needs fixingSome records did not clearly explain how decisions should be made for people assessed as lacking capacity for particular decisions. The manager agreed to address this.
“where people had been assessed as not having capacity to make certain decisions the instructions about how decisions were to be taken in the person's best interests were not clear.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans and risk assessments been reviewed and updated since the inspection?
- 02How are choking-risk recommendations recorded and kept up to date?
- 03How are best-interest decisions recorded for people who lack capacity to make particular decisions?
- 04How do you check that staff follow the latest care plans and risk assessments?
- 05How can relatives take part in future care-plan reviews and raise concerns?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care quality, records, medicines, staffing, safeguarding and management arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 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 Walsingham House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 June 2014.
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 Warwickshire
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 £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.