CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Warwick House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Warwick House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors visited the home on 19 November 2020. This was an announced thematic review looking at infection prevention and control in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
They found measures to reduce infection risks. These included limiting visitors, temperature checks, face masks, hand washing, social distancing, risk-assessed family visits, staff training, plentiful personal protective equipment and COVID-19 testing.
The home had updated infection control policies, regular audits and information in easy-read formats. Inspectors said they were assured about the infection controls, but signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
The home was inspected but not rated. This inspection did not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visits were limited to essential visitors, with checks and protective measures on arrival. Family visits and visits to relatives' homes were risk assessed.
“Visitors to the service had been limited to essential visitors only, such as, health professionals.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had training in infection safety and using protective equipment. Inspectors saw staff wearing suitable equipment and noted plentiful supplies.
“We observed staff were wearing appropriate PPE and there were plentiful supplies.” from the report
Testing arrangements
There was a testing programme for staff and people living in the home. Individual best-interest decisions had been made about testing residents.
“There was a testing programme in place for staff and people living in the service.” from the report
Updated procedures
The provider had updated infection control policies and carried out regular audits. Information about COVID-19 and infection control was available in easy-read formats.
“The provider ensured policies and procedures in relation to infection prevention and control were updated and available to staff.” from the report
Further development identified
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection control approach. The report does not explain what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection control improvements were made after inspectors signposted the provider to further resources?
- 02How are visitors currently checked, and what protective measures are still required?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and how are decisions about testing made for each resident?
- 04How are family visits currently risk assessed, including visits to relatives' homes?
- 05What is the home's current full CQC rating, as this inspection was not rated?
This was an announced thematic review of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the overall service or most other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 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, November 2017
Warwick House rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and staff support needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on the first day, carried out over 9 and 10 October 2017. The inspector spoke with everyone living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked the building, care records, medicines, staff files, complaints information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who knew their needs, preferences and interests well.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent, take part in activities and use their local community. The home had detailed care plans, enough staff for the people living there at the time, safe medicines arrangements and regular checks on quality and safety.
There were some shortfalls. Not every best-interests decision had been recorded, fire extinguishers had been moved to the office as a short-term safety measure, and some staff said they felt undervalued by the provider. The manager acted on the recording issue during or after the inspection.
Safety and risk management
The home identified individual risks and gave staff clear guidance. This aimed to keep people safe while supporting their independence.
“Risks to people were managed well and gave people freedom, yet kept them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had positive relationships with people and supported them calmly and sensitively. Inspectors saw care that protected people's comfort, dignity and privacy.
“We observed staff supported people in a kind and sensitive way, ensuring their well-being and comfort when providing their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences, interests, health needs and support requirements. Care records gave detailed guidance about how each person wanted to be supported.
“People's care plans were personalised and provided information of how staff should support them.” from the report
Independence and community life
People were encouraged to make choices, develop skills, work and take part in activities outside the home. Staff supported individual hobbies and interests.
“There was a real commitment from the registered manager and staff to actively involve people in their local community.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager regularly checked areas such as medicines, finances, records, maintenance and health and safety. Accidents and incidents were reviewed, with action taken to reduce future risks.
“Regular audits were carried out by the registered manager to monitor the quality and safety of the home.” from the report
Best-interests records
needs fixingNot all decisions made for people who could not give consent had been formally recorded. The manager said reviews would be arranged so decisions could be reassessed and recorded properly.
“However, not all decisions made in people's best interests had been recorded.” from the report
Fire extinguisher location
needs fixingFire extinguishers had been moved from ground-floor corridors because of a risk linked to one person's behaviour. The manager described this as a short-term measure and said the fire risk assessments had been updated.
“However, during the inspection we saw that fire extinguishers had been moved from the corridors on the ground floor to the office due to risk from behaviours displayed by one person which placed them and other people at risk of harm.” from the report
Provider support for staff
minorSome staff said they did not feel valued by the provider, even though they felt supported by the manager. The manager said these comments would be passed to the provider.
“However, staff told us they did not feel they got the same level of support from the provider and felt undervalued because of this.” from the report
- 01How are best-interests decisions now recorded, reviewed and checked?
- 02Have the fire extinguishers been returned to suitable locations, and what is the current fire safety plan?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient if more people move into the home or people's needs change?
- 04What has the provider done in response to staff saying they felt undervalued?
- 05How are people's chosen activities, work opportunities and community trips planned and maintained?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with the first day unannounced. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 November 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 Warwick House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.