CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wansbeck Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable infection controls and prompt responses to incidents. However, some risk assessments and daily records were not consistently up to date or easy for staff to access.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems did not always identify patterns, check the quality of records or support meaningful involvement of people and relatives. The manager also needed to improve their understanding of the duty of candour.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the home needed to improve its leadership, records and quality checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 25 May 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and outside professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and well supported. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean and infection controls were suitable. Staff were described as calm, warm and respectful.
The main weaknesses were in management oversight. Risk assessments and daily records were not always kept up to date or written in a person-centred way. Audits did not always identify patterns or check the quality of care. The overall rating stayed Good, but Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent. Records, stock checks and audits helped reduce the risk of medicines errors.
“Medicines administration, storage and disposal was safe. Staff understood their roles.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs safely. The provider had recently increased staffing and reduced reliance on agency workers.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind interactions
Staff knew people well and interacted with them calmly, warmly and respectfully during the inspection.
“The atmosphere was calm and welcoming. Staff interacted compassionately and warmly with people throughout the inspection.” from the report
Clean and safer environment
The home was clean and had responded to advice about building safety and maintenance. Further refurbishment was planned.
“The provider had made improvements to the safety of the environment in response to visits from external agencies.” from the report
Care records and risk reviews
needs fixingSome risk assessments were not person-centred or up to date. Daily records were not always easy for staff to access, which could make it harder to provide consistent care.
“Risk assessments were in place and staff understood the risks people faced. Recording of this information was not always consistent or up to date.” from the report
Quality monitoring
needs fixingAudits and incident reviews did not always identify patterns or lead to improvements. The report says checks focused too much on whether records existed, rather than their quality or effect on care.
“Auditing and governance systems had not always been fully used to identify patterns and trends.” from the report
Falls prevention
needs fixingStaff responded promptly when people fell, but the provider needed to develop more proactive ways to reduce the regularity of falls.
“The provider needed to explore more proactive strategies across the service to try and reduce the regularity of falls.” from the report
Involvement in decisions
minorPeople and relatives were not always meaningfully involved in planning meals, activities and other parts of daily life.
“People and their relatives had not always been meaningfully involved in the planning of meals, activities and other areas of day-to-day life.” from the report
Duty of candour
needs fixingThe manager understood what needed to be reported to CQC but was less clear about when the home should apologise after something went wrong.
“They were less clear on the full implications of the duty of candour, and when they needed to apologise to people if something had gone wrong.” from the report
- 01How have you made care plans, risk assessments and daily records more person-centred, current and easy for staff to access?
- 02What changes have you made to identify patterns in falls, anxious behaviour and other incidents?
- 03How are you checking the quality and effect of care records, rather than only checking that records exist?
- 04How are residents and relatives now involved in planning meals, activities and day-to-day decisions?
- 05What training or support has the manager received about the duty of candour and apologising when things go wrong?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection in 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 June 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, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and clear improvements since the previous inspection, with some records still needing attention.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over 10, 11 and 13 May 2021. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, watched how care was provided, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People and relatives said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found that staff were kind and respectful, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed and people were supported with food, drink, healthcare, activities and end of life care.
Some records were not fully personalised or up to date. Risk assessments varied in detail, one person's nutritional care plan needed updating, and monitoring systems had not always identified improvements quickly. Inspectors found no evidence that these issues had harmed people.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good. This was an improvement from Requires Improvement at the previous focused inspection, when infection control concerns led to a breach and a warning notice.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff positively. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, respect and patience.
“People were treated with respect and kindness. Staff supported people to maintain their independence and dignity.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records were completed and checked through audits. Care plans and administration protocols were also in place.
“Medicines records were completed appropriately and audited to ensure compliance.” from the report
Improved infection control
Inspectors found that the home had addressed the previous infection control concerns and was no longer in breach.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 12.” from the report
Support with interests
The home had a clear focus on meaningful activities, interests, friendships and relationships to help prevent social isolation.
“There was a clear focus on ensuring people were engaged and filling their time in a way that was meaningful to them.” from the report
Risk assessments varied
needs fixingSome risk assessments contained less detail than others. The manager was working to improve them, and inspectors found no impact on people's care.
“Control measures to minimise the risks were more detailed on some risk assessments than others.” from the report
Nutrition record needed updating
needs fixingOne person's care plan did not reflect their current nutritional needs. Inspectors found no evidence that this had affected the care provided.
“One person's care plan had not been kept up to date in relation to their nutritional needs however there was no evidence this had impacted on their care.” from the report
Care plans not always personal
needs fixingSome care plans were specific to the person, but others were general. The manager had introduced new reviews to improve this.
“Some care plans were very personalised and specific to the person's preferences; while others were quite general.” from the report
Checks did not always find problems
needs fixingDaily checks and care plan reviews had not always been used effectively to identify areas for improvement. Immediate action was taken to improve the audit tools.
“Daily walkarounds and care plan reviews had not always been used effectively to identify areas for improvement.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's risk assessments contain enough detail and are updated when their needs change?
- 02How do you check that nutrition and fluid records accurately reflect each person's current needs?
- 03How will you make sure care plans record my relative's preferences and involvement in decisions?
- 04What changes have you made to daily walkarounds, care plan reviews and audits since the inspection?
- 05How are you maintaining the improved infection prevention and control arrangements?
This was an unannounced focused follow-up inspection, mainly looking at Safe and infection prevention and control; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were first assessed for this newly registered service, while the previous inspection had only rated Safe and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 2021 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 Wansbeck Care Home
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 June 2020.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £1,190 a week. 20 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.