CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wansbeck House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with all five areas rated Good.
Inspectors visited without notice on 4 and 6 February 2020. One inspector spoke with one person, four relatives, six staff members and three health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training, incident and management records.
They found detailed care plans and risk assessments, safe staffing and medicines systems, clean and well-maintained premises, and staff who understood people's needs. People were supported to make choices, build independence, keep relationships and take part in activities they enjoyed.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating was Good, unchanged from the previous inspection published on 23 August 2017.
Independence and risk support
Risk assessments focused on what people could do with support. Staff helped people try new things while managing risks.
“Risk assessments were detailed and focussed on what people were able to do, not what they couldn't.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received training linked to people's complex needs. This gave people more flexibility in their activities and routines.
“These involved external professionals and meant people could be more flexible because they were supported by staff with a greater range of skills.” from the report
Respect and involvement
People were treated with respect and involved in decisions about their care and the running of the home. Staff understood verbal and non-verbal communication.
“People were involved in decisions about their care and how the service was run.” from the report
Activities and community life
Staff supported group and individual activities based on people's interests. They helped people access education, outings and community opportunities.
“Staff encouraged and empowered people to take part in a range of group and individual activities.” from the report
Induction could be more interactive
minorSome staff said the induction for new employees could have been more interactive. The manager said this would be reviewed.
“Some fed back that the induction experience could have been more interactive.” from the report
Limited response to family surveys
minorThe manager had sent surveys to relatives but had not received responses at the time of the inspection. Relatives said they were regularly asked for feedback.
“The registered manager had sent out surveys to family members but had yet to receive responses.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to make the induction for new staff more interactive?
- 02How do you gather feedback from relatives now that the most recent surveys had not received responses?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed if their needs or interests change?
- 04How will the new manager's application to register with CQC progress?
- 05How will my relative be supported to use activities, the minibus and other facilities that match their interests?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, and the previous Good ratings remained unchanged. 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
Wansbeck House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection. The inspector visited on 25 July 2017, observed care, spoke with staff and the manager, reviewed care and medicines records, checked staff files and walked around the home. Relatives were contacted on 28 July and 2 August.
The home supported people with learning disabilities and complex physical care needs. Inspectors found all five areas were Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Staff were trained, people had access to healthcare, medicines were managed safely, and care plans reflected people's needs and preferences.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the inspection on 16 December 2016. The earlier problem with quality checks had been addressed. New audits covered areas such as medicines, staffing, care plans, health and safety, and the environment.
There was no registered manager in post at the time. A new manager had been in place for four weeks and was applying to register with the CQC. Inspectors also noted that some medicines guidance was confusing at first glance and that the home was reviewing how best to handle some legal assessments for people staying for short breaks.
Appropriate staffing
Inspectors found staffing levels matched people's needs. Everyone had one-to-one support, and some people had two staff supporting them.
“Every person had 1:1 staffing and some people due to their needs had 2:1 staff to support them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared relaxed with staff. Relatives were very positive about the care, and staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and their particular personalities.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's wishes, preferences, communication needs and goals. People were involved in choosing activities, menus and daily routines.
“The care plans we looked at were person centred, by this we mean the individual needs of the person, their wishes and preferences, were identified.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home introduced regular audits and used them to create improvement actions. This addressed the governance problem found at the previous inspection.
“At this visit we saw that a range of audits had been put in place to check the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Support for health needs
People had access to healthcare professionals and hospital passports. Staff understood people's complex health needs and how to seek medical help.
“People now had hospital passports in place.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A new manager had been in post for four weeks and was applying to register with the CQC.
“At the time of our inspection visit, the service did not have a registered manager in place.” from the report
Medicines guidance needed clarification
needs fixingInspectors found the process for some medicines used when needed and the related stock checks confusing at first. The manager agreed to introduce a clearer form.
“We discussed with the manager and a senior care officer 'as and when required' medicine protocols and the method of stock checks as these were at first glance confusing.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager now completed registration with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home until that happens?
- 02What new form or process is now used to give staff clear instructions about 'as and when required' medicines?
- 03How are medicines stock checks audited now, and what happens if a record does not match?
- 04How are mental capacity and deprivation of liberty assessments handled for people staying for one night or several weeks?
- 05How will staffing levels change if the home is supporting more people or people with different needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the report also records conversations with relatives on 28 July and 2 August, and says the earlier December 2016 governance breach had been addressed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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 Wansbeck House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
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 £1,160 a week. 30 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.