CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Warmere Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Warmere Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors made an unannounced, targeted visit on 9 February 2021. They looked at infection prevention and control because the home had experienced a COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors found safe arrangements for visitors, including hand sanitising, temperature checks, personal protective equipment and lateral flow testing. Staff used protective equipment correctly, people were supported to keep their distance, and cleaning schedules covered communal areas and high-touch surfaces.
The home was closed to admissions at the time. The report says new admissions would need a negative COVID-19 test and 14 days of isolation. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
The home had clear steps for essential visitors, including hand sanitising, temperature checks, PPE and lateral flow testing.
“Safe practices were in place for the arrival of visitors, for example visitors were required to sanitise their hands, have their temperature taken, wear personal protective equipment (PPE) and complete a lateral flow test for Covid-19.” from the report
Safe use of PPE
Staff were observed using PPE correctly and had training in putting it on and taking it off safely.
“Staff were observed wearing correct PPE and had received training in how to safely put on and remove PPE.” from the report
Cleaning
The home was clean and had daily cleaning schedules for rooms and shared areas. Extra cleaning was carried out on high-touch surfaces.
“The premises were clean and hygienic and there were daily cleaning schedules in place for rooms and communal spaces.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to stay in touch with relatives through phone and video calls, and a monthly magazine provided updates and a way to ask questions.
“Tablet devices were available for phone or video calls and the service had a monthly magazine which updated people and their loved ones on what was happening in the service” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and how have they changed since the inspection?
- 02What checks and protective equipment are currently required when visitors arrive?
- 03What testing and isolation arrangements are used for new admissions now?
- 04How will residents be supported to keep in contact with relatives if visiting is restricted?
- 05How are staff allocated to different areas of the home during an infection outbreak?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only, and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Warmere Court was rated Requires Improvement because inspectors found risks with food, medicines and management systems, despite kind care and good support in other areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care, medicine and management records.
The home was not always safe. Some people on modified diets were given food that could increase their risk of choking. Medicines for people with Parkinson’s disease were not always given at the prescribed times. One person had lost significant weight without enough oversight.
Inspectors found that audits and records had not always identified or shown what care had been provided. The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive, but Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. The overall rating was Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity, choice and independence were respected.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs, and staff responded promptly when people needed help.
“There were enough staff to ensure that people's needs were met.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
People took part in varied activities and visits that reflected their interests, including gardening, music and visits to places of interest.
“People took part in meaningful activities and a range of different pastimes to meet their interests and preferences.” from the report
Improved consent systems
The home had improved how it assessed people's capacity and monitored authorised restrictions on their liberty.
“There were effective systems in place to ensure DoLS that had been authorised were monitored and managed appropriately.” from the report
Modified diets and choking risk
seriousPeople who needed modified diets were sometimes given foods that professional guidance said they should avoid. This increased the risk of choking and was a high concern for safety.
“These actions placed the person at increased risk of harm and the provider had not considered the potential risk of choking.” from the report
Medicine timings
seriousTwo people with Parkinson's disease did not always receive medicines according to prescribing guidance. On one occasion, medicines were given one hour late.
“There had still been occasions when one person had not had their medicines according to prescribing guidance” from the report
Unexplained weight loss
seriousOne person lost 17% of their body weight over six months. Weekly weighing and high-calorie snacks and drinks had not consistently been provided as planned.
“Records showed that this has not been implemented in practice and the person had continued to experience unexplained weight-loss.” from the report
Incomplete repositioning records
needs fixingRecords did not always show whether two people had received the regular repositioning support they needed. This made it unclear whether care had been provided or simply not recorded.
“It was not evident if people had received appropriate care or if staff had failed to document their actions.” from the report
- 01How are modified diets now prepared, labelled and checked at every meal?
- 02How do you make sure Parkinson's medicines are given at the prescribed times, and how are late doses reviewed?
- 03What monitoring is now in place for people at risk of weight loss?
- 04How do you check that repositioning and other care are both provided and recorded?
- 05What progress has been made in meeting the Warning Notice deadline of 30 September 2019?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 August 2019 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 Warmere Court
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 2010.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 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.