CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Warwick House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People felt safe and there were enough staff. However, action to manage a fire escape and falls risk was delayed, and medicine procedures and records were not always followed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training and support. People were supported with their health, nutrition, healthcare appointments and rights under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as friendly, patient and caring. Inspectors saw privacy, dignity, personal choice and independence being respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people helped to plan and review their support. Staff responded to changes in people's mood and needs, and supported chosen activities and interests.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People and staff spoke positively about the management. However, quality checks did not always find problems, and there was not enough evidence showing how feedback would be turned into completed improvements.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicine safety, risk management and quality checks needed improvement.
This was the home's first inspection since it registered in August 2017. It was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 12 July 2018. The inspector spoke with two people, two care staff and the registered manager, and reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and quality checks.
People said they felt safe and received kind, respectful care from staff who knew them well. Staff were available, trained and supported people with their health, daily choices, activities and independence. The home was clean and homely, and people were involved in planning their care.
Inspectors found some safety risks were not dealt with quickly enough. Medicine records and procedures were not always followed. Quality audits did not always identify problems, and some management records were incomplete. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with Safe and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
People were supported by staff who knew them well and treated them with patience, kindness and respect.
“People received their care and support from staff they knew, who understood their needs, and with whom they had built relationships.” from the report
Choice and independence
People helped decide how they spent their time and were supported to build everyday skills and work towards living more independently.
“Promoting people's independence was central to the services aim of supporting people to move on to live independently.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received an induction, ongoing training and checks of their practice. Training included areas linked to people's individual needs.
“Staff received induction and training that supported them to meet the needs of people effectively.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in their assessments, care plans and reviews. Staff used handovers and keyworker arrangements to understand changing needs.
“People were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support.” from the report
Fire escape risk
seriousA known risk from a fire escape door and unsafe steps had not been dealt with promptly. There was no interim risk management plan, and inspectors were unsure whether the planned alarm could be heard throughout the home.
“On the day of our visit we found the planned action had not been completed and there was no risk management plan in place to show how this risk was being managed in the interim.” from the report
Medicine records and procedures
seriousOne medicine appeared to have conflicting instructions, and records did not explain what it was for or when it should be given. Staff also did not always record photographs or report repeated refusals to the prescriber.
“This meant we could not be sure the person's medicine was being administered as prescribed.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingAudits had been completed but did not identify medicine and care plan shortfalls. The home also lacked records showing how accidents and incidents were analysed for patterns.
“We found audits and checks to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided had been completed but were not always effective.” from the report
Emergency planning
needs fixingAt the inspection there was no emergency contingency plan with all the information needed if people could not return to the home after an emergency. The report later confirmed that a plan had been put in place.
“The home did not have an emergency contingency plan.” from the report
- 01How are you now managing the fire escape door and the falls risk on the steps?
- 02How do you check that medicine instructions, refusals and administration records are correct and complete?
- 03What changes have you made to quality audits so they identify problems with medicines and care plans?
- 04What does the new emergency contingency plan cover, and where can staff and emergency services find it?
- 05How do you record and review accidents and incidents to identify patterns and prevent them happening again?
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection covering all five key questions and the premises as well as the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 August 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.
Every inspection of Warwick House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2018Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 August 2017.
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 Coventry
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. 80 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.”
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
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.