CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Waterfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safer care and stronger leadership after previous breaches, but staff views about staffing levels were mixed.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection. The inspector visited on 27 April 2021 and reviewed records remotely before giving feedback on 7 May 2021. They spoke with people, staff, a health care professional and relatives, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staffing information and management checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good and Well-led was rated Good. Inspectors found improvements in staffing, care records, medicines systems, infection control, staff morale and management oversight.
The previous inspection had rated the home Requires Improvement, with breaches relating to staffing and good governance. At this inspection, the provider had made enough improvement and was no longer in breach of those regulations.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only. The ratings for the other key questions were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Improved staffing systems
Staffing levels had been increased and were being reviewed against people's changing needs. Call bell response times had also improved since the last inspection.
“Following our last inspection, the provider had increased the staffing levels in the service.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Records showed that people received their medicines when needed. Staff administering medicines were trained and their competence was checked.
“Records showed people received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Stronger management
The new manager had improved staff morale and introduced ways for staff and residents to raise concerns and suggest improvements.
“Staff told us how they felt the atmosphere and staff morale had improved and their comments were listened to and acted on.” from the report
Better care records
Care records gave staff clearer guidance about people's needs and how their conditions affected them. Monitoring had improved so problems could be identified and dealt with promptly.
“Improvements had been made in people's care records which identified the guidance staff needed to provide the care and support people required” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for PPE, testing, visiting, hygiene, social distancing and managing infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
needs fixingAlthough staffing levels had been increased and were monitored, some staff were not convinced there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors did not find a breach at this inspection.
“We received mixed views from staff about if they felt there were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Recent medicines incident
needs fixingThere had recently been an incident where medicines were not available. The manager and health care professionals addressed it, but families may want to ask what changes followed.
“There had been a recent incident regarding medicines not being available, this was addressed by the manager and health care professionals.” from the report
- 01How do you currently decide how many staff are needed for the people living here?
- 02What are the usual call bell response times, and how do you act when they are delayed?
- 03What caused the recent incident when medicines were not available, and what has changed since then?
- 04How will you continue to check that care records accurately reflect each person's needs?
- 05How are residents' and relatives' suggestions recorded and followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 May 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, December 2020
Waterfield House: Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, with some guidance given to develop the approach.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 November 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than the full range of care provided.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections from spreading. They found appropriate arrangements for visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
The home displayed coronavirus risk assessments for staff. It also had a separate area where new residents could self-isolate before moving to another room.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to prevent and manage infection, including safe use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home had a separate area for new admissions to self-isolate before moving into the main service.
“The registered manager has created a designated area for new admissions into the service to self-isolate in.” from the report
Risk information for staff
Coronavirus-related risk assessments were displayed for staff to read and understand.
“COVID-19 related risk assessments were on display for staff to read and be aware of throughout the service.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorAlthough inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, they signposted the home to resources to develop its approach to the layout and hygiene of the premises.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01How is the designated self-isolation area for new admissions used now?
- 02What changes have been made after CQC signposted resources to develop the approach to the layout and hygiene of the premises?
- 03How do you currently provide testing for residents and staff?
- 04How do you manage visitors, social distancing and protective equipment?
- 05What is the current plan for preventing and managing an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the coronavirus pandemic, and it did not assess the other four questions or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
Every inspection of Waterfield House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.