CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Warley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from harm and risks were assessed. Staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and premises safety were found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained, supervised and supported people's nutrition, hydration and healthcare needs. However, just under half of care staff had completed Mental Capacity Act training, and some parts of the building looked worn.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. People were involved in their care, offered choices and supported to maintain their privacy, dignity, independence and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and regularly reviewed. Families and friends were supported to visit, complaints were investigated, and end of life care was described as appropriate and sensitive.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management style was open and approachable, and audits were used to identify and address some shortfalls. Inspectors said the manager was not proactive enough in seeking best practice or planning future development.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some gaps in training and tired areas of the building.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 5 February 2018. One inspector spoke with eight people, visitors, staff and the manager. They also checked care records, medicines, staff files, complaints, the building and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, medicines were managed safely, staffing was suitable and care plans reflected people's needs.
The home had improved since the January 2017 inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found better activities and more regular medicines and environmental checks. The Good overall rating is based on the ratings for all five areas.
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's preferences and treated them with kindness, privacy and respect. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People received compassionate care from kind staff. People were supplied with the information they needed, involved in all aspects of their care and their consent was sought.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans described people's needs and wishes and were reviewed monthly or when needs changed. Staff showed a good understanding of people's health needs, interests and preferences.
“Care plans were person-centred and contained information under several areas of need for staff on how best to support people.” from the report
Complaints handled
The report says all four complaints made in the previous 12 months were addressed and resolved within the expected timescales.
“There had been four complaints in the last twelve months and all four were appropriately addressed and resolved.” from the report
Improved quality checks
The home had introduced more regular checks of medicines and the environment. Audits were used to record shortfalls and track actions.
“There were quality audits completed on a regular basis and these were used to identify any shortfalls” from the report
Mental Capacity Act training gap
needs fixingJust under half of care staff had completed training on the Mental Capacity Act. This could affect how consistently staff protect people's decision-making rights.
“There was a gap in staff training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) with just under half of the care staff having completed it.” from the report
Tired areas of the building
needs fixingSome flooring, paintwork and bedroom plaster needed improvement. Inspectors said these areas were safe but not fully welcoming or designed around dementia-friendly principles.
“The bathroom and toilet floor coverings were in need of an upgrade for easier cleaning, paintwork was scuffed in many corridors and on door thresholds” from the report
Unpleasant odours in two bedrooms
minorThe home was generally clean, but two bedrooms had unpleasant odours on the inspection day. The manager explained what staff were doing to improve the environment.
“While the premises were clean not all bedrooms were free from unpleasant odours, as we found two that were unpleasant.” from the report
Limited forward planning
needs fixingInspectors said the manager maintained the existing standard but did not seek current best practice or new ways to improve the service for the future.
“The registered manager was not so proactive at seeking continuous learning around best practice generally within the service.” from the report
- 01How many care staff have now completed Mental Capacity Act training, and how is this training kept up to date?
- 02What work has been completed on the bathroom and toilet floors, scuffed paintwork and damaged plaster in bedrooms?
- 03How are unpleasant odours in bedrooms monitored and dealt with?
- 04What activities are currently available for people, including those who prefer individual activities?
- 05How do you now seek current best practice and involve people and families in future improvements?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the care, accommodation and management of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 2018 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, March 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, effective and caring support, but social activities and management checks were not always good enough.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit over two days on 9 and 10 January 2017. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care records, staff files, training, medicines, maintenance and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. Staff recruitment and safeguarding arrangements were sound. Medicines were managed safely. People received suitable food and support with health needs. Inspectors saw kind relationships, respect for choices and attention to privacy.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Meaningful activities were sometimes limited, and inspectors found some lapses in supporting dignity. Management checks did not always identify problems or lead to action quickly enough. The overall rating Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently meeting the standard expected, although inspectors found important areas of good care.
Safer recruitment and safeguarding
Staff were checked before starting work and had training to recognise and report abuse. Staff said they would use the whistleblowing procedure if needed.
“We found robust recruitment procedures had been followed.” from the report
Consent and legal rights
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Assessments and best-interest meetings were being used when people could not make particular decisions themselves.
“At this inspection we found the registered provider had taken appropriate action to meet the shortfalls identified above.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking positively with people, offering reassurance and supporting privacy and independence.
“We found care staff demonstrated care and compassion and saw they engaged sensitively with people to ensure their personal dignity was maintained.” from the report
Food and health support
People had a choice of home-cooked meals. Staff monitored nutrition and worked with health professionals when people needed additional support.
“We observed people were provided with a variety of nourishing home cooked meals from a rotating menu.” from the report
Limited activities and dignity
needs fixingOpportunities for meaningful social interaction were sometimes limited. Inspectors also found that some aspects of dignity could have been better supported.
“Opportunities for people to engage with staff in meaningful social activities were somewhat limited to ensure their dignity was promoted” from the report
Quality checks did not lead to prompt action
needs fixingAudits did not always identify or resolve problems quickly. Examples included a missing toilet lock, missing dining room curtains and an incomplete medicine consent assessment.
“Whilst a range of audits on different aspects of the service were completed, we found these were not always carried out effectively” from the report
Staffing reviews were not timely
needs fixingDependency levels were not regularly reviewed, and relatives said staff did not always have enough time. The manager said a new staffing plan had been put in place.
“We were told staffing levels were assessed according to people's individual dependencies but we found these were not regularly reviewed” from the report
Toilet lock and laundry equipment
needs fixingA broken downstairs toilet lock could affect privacy. A leaking washing machine created a possible contamination risk, although the manager took prompt action about it.
“This meant people's dignity was potentially compromised.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to provide regular, meaningful activities for people, including those living with dementia?
- 02How do you now check that people's dignity and independence are being supported during daily care?
- 03How often are staffing dependency levels reviewed, and how do you ensure there are enough staff at busy times?
- 04Have the toilet lock, dining room curtains and laundry equipment issues all been resolved?
- 05How do your current audits identify and quickly act on problems with medicines, staffing and the environment?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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 Warley House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 August 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
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 £980 to £1,300 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.