CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Warwick Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and inspectors found enough staff, appropriate recruitment checks, risk assessments and safe medicines procedures. Incidents were reviewed so lessons could be learned.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, refresher training, supervision and support for people's individual needs. People received help with food, hydration, health appointments and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed friendly and attentive interactions. People were offered choices, treated with dignity and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's individual needs and were regularly reviewed. The home provided varied activities, communication support and end of life planning.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to identify and make improvements.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Warwick Park Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 9 March 2020. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with 16 people, five relatives and nine staff. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff files, complaints, incidents, policies and quality checks.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems and suitable infection control. Risks were assessed and reviewed. People received support with food, health needs and communication. Staff asked for consent and respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. The home offered group and one-to-one activities, including music and exercise. Inspectors found positive relationships between people and staff, and said managers listened to feedback and used checks to improve the service.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection, published in September 2017, also rated the home Good.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe and reassured. Staff knew how to respond to risks and safeguarding concerns.
“People and their relatives were happy with the care and support they received.” from the report
Safe medicines
The electronic medicines records showed what had been given and by whom. Staff checked the person, medicine and timing, and asked for consent.
“Electronic medicines records were completed which provided a clear audit trail of the medicines that people had been given and by which members of staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly, attentive interactions. Staff respected privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“There was friendly and pleasant interaction between staff, people and visitors.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered areas such as mobility, nutrition, skin care, personal care and mental wellbeing. Communication plans helped people express choices.
“People's care plans were comprehensive in scope and were reviewed on a regular basis.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered group and one-to-one activities, including music and exercise. People were supported to maintain relationships and access the community.
“They were a mixture of group and one to one activities for those people that did not enjoy taking part in communal events.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff said managers were approachable and listened to feedback. Weekly surgeries gave people another way to raise issues.
“In response to this, the registered manager told us she now held an open surgery, every week for people and their relatives to come in and speak to her.” from the report
Activities had previously been reduced
minorSome informal concerns had been raised during a period without an activities co-ordinator. Inspectors said these concerns stopped after a new co-ordinator was recruited.
“There had been some informal concerns raised in relation to a period of time where there was no activities co-ordinator” from the report
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's risks, especially around falls, pressure sores, choking or other health needs?
- 02How will you support my relative's medicines, including any medicines needed as required or mixed with food?
- 03What activities are currently available, including one-to-one activities for someone who does not enjoy group events?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication, choices and independence?
- 05How will you involve our family in care reviews and end of life planning if this becomes relevant?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the ratings in all five areas remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, while building works caused some noise and feedback records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 August 2017. Inspectors reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, food, activities and quality checks. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and local authority case managers, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines processes, suitable training, prompt health referrals and care that respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
The home had previously breached Regulation 11 about mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and staff training. Inspectors found this had been corrected. Building work was taking place, and meeting notes did not identify which person had made each comment, which could make individual follow-up harder.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with extra staff used when individual circumstances required this. Risk assessments and safety checks were detailed.
“There was a sufficient number of staff to meet people's needs in a safe way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff communicated at people's level, used preferred names and supported privacy and dignity. They encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.
“The staff approach was kind and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life histories, preferences and routines. Staff knew what mattered to each person and adapted care, food and activities accordingly.
“Staff followed care plans that reflected people's individual needs and wishes.” from the report
Management and improvement
The home used audits, meetings and feedback to identify problems and make changes. The previous mental capacity shortfall had been addressed.
“There was a robust system of quality assurance in place and as a result, action was taken to implement improvements.” from the report
Building work and noise
minorBuilding work was under way during the inspection. People reported occasional noise, although they understood it was temporary.
“No cause to complain apart from the noise because of the building works sometimes but it won't be for much longer and it can't be helped so we understand” from the report
Recording people's feedback
minorMeeting minutes recorded comments as coming from 'People said' rather than identifying each person. Inspectors said this could make individual follow-up difficult.
“We noted that the minutes of these meetings were not identifying each person when they offered their comments, and referred to them solely as 'People said…'” from the report
- 01Have the building works finished, and what arrangements are now in place to prevent noise or disruption?
- 02Is the on-site kitchen now in use, and how are individual dietary needs and preferences being met?
- 03How will staffing levels change if the home has more than 22 residents or people's needs increase?
- 04How are residents' and relatives' comments now recorded so that individual concerns can be followed up?
- 05How are mental capacity assessments, consent and best-interest decisions recorded for people who cannot make particular decisions themselves?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions and included records, observations and discussions with people, relatives, staff and local authority case managers. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 September 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 Park Care Home
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
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 March 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.