CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Waterfield Supported Homes Limited
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- The home had enough staff, suitable safety checks and risk plans, and people received medicines safely. However, the premises were not clean, and medicines records did not always follow best practice.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in the report. Inspectors said people were supported to make choices and staff supported them in the least restrictive way and in their best interests.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in the report. People said staff treated them with respect, listened to them and supported their preferred activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in the report. People were involved in daily choices, house meetings and compiling the food menu, and could access the community when they wished.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People and staff felt able to approach managers, and staff received training and supervision. However, management audits had not fully or promptly identified and addressed cleanliness problems.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Waterfield Supported Homes Limited is Requires Improvement; inspectors found serious cleanliness problems, although care, staffing and medicines support were generally safe.
The inspection was unannounced. Inspectors visited on 27 February 2023 and reviewed records, staffing, medicines, safety checks, care planning and management systems. They spoke with four people, the registered manager and two support workers.
People said they felt safe, were treated with respect and could make everyday choices. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were mostly suitable, medicines were given safely, and risk and emergency plans were in place.
The main problem was cleanliness. Inspectors found substantial dirt and dust, mould beginning to build up in bathrooms, and shower heads needing replacement or descaling. They also found that audits had not identified or dealt with these problems promptly.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2018 to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The provider said it had appointed a new cleaning company after the inspection, and CQC requested an action plan and said it would monitor progress.
Respect and choice
People said staff listened to them and treated them respectfully. They were involved in everyday decisions and activities.
“People told us they were treated with respect and listened to by staff.” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to monitor people's wellbeing and provide support. Most recruitment checks were completed appropriately.
“There are always enough staff day and night” from the report
Medicines support
Staff had medicines training and competency checks. Inspectors found that people received their medicines safely.
“People received their medicines safely by staff who had the right skills to do so” from the report
Risk and liberty safeguards
Risk plans, fire checks and evacuation plans were in place. The service followed the Mental Capacity Act principles and had appropriate legal authorisations where needed.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place” from the report
Dirty premises
seriousInspectors found substantial dirt and dust across the home, including stairwells, bathrooms and people's rooms. Mould was beginning to accumulate, and some shower heads needed replacement or descaling.
“The home was not clean. We found substantial amounts of dirt and dust throughout the service, including on stairwells, bathrooms and in people's rooms.” from the report
Weak cleanliness checks
needs fixingThe provider's audits covered infection control but did not identify or deal with the cleanliness problems fully or quickly enough.
“the systems had not fully or promptly addressed issues to do with the cleanliness of the premises .” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingHandwritten medicines charts were sometimes used, and some inhalers appeared in daily notes rather than on the medicines chart. The provider was moving to an electronic system.
“at times handwritten MAR charts were used, which is not best practice, and sometimes inhalers were not recorded on the MAR chart” from the report
- 01What cleaning work has been completed since the inspection, including the stairlift, bathrooms, stairwells and people's rooms?
- 02How do you now check and record high-level cleaning and prevent mould from building up?
- 03Are all medicines, including inhalers, now recorded on the medicines administration chart or electronic system?
- 04What action has been taken in response to the Regulation 15 breach, and can we see evidence that it has been completed?
- 05How are residents' individual issues discussed in staff meetings, given that service-specific staff meetings were less frequent?
This unannounced inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the report did not give separate ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 2023 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, June 2018
Waterfield Supported Homes Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 June 2018. One inspector spoke with two people living at the home, staff and managers. They reviewed three care records, four staff files, rotas, management records and quality checks. They also received feedback from two health and social care professionals.
The home supported up to five people, with four people living there at the time. Inspectors found that people were safe, received suitable care and were supported by trained staff. Medicines, staffing, risk management and the premises were checked and found to be managed appropriately.
People were described as happy and treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was personalised, people were involved in decisions and activities, and staff supported people to build daily living skills. The report also found that the home worked well with health and social care professionals and acted on feedback.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection on 8 March 2016.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they were happy and safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and how to manage risks.
“One person told us, "I am happy here. I feel safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff listened to people, respected their privacy and dignity, and supported important relationships.
“There was a pleasant and relaxed atmosphere at the service which enabled people to enjoy caring relationships with the staff who provided their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's histories, choices and routines. Staff supported people to develop independence in areas such as personal care, laundry and managing money.
“Support plans reflected people's life histories, choices, preferences and routines about their care delivery.” from the report
Good health support
Staff worked with health professionals and supported people to attend a range of appointments. People's health action plans recorded the support they needed.
“Records showed staff supported people to see professionals including GPs, psychiatrists, opticians, dentists, podiatrists and district nurses.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care and make improvements. Staff said they could raise concerns openly.
“Effective quality assurance systems remained in place and were used to identify and rectify any shortfalls to care delivery.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative's risks if their mental health or physical health changed?
- 02How would you support my relative to develop independence in daily living skills?
- 03How are medicines managed, and how do you check that staff remain competent to administer them?
- 04How would you involve my relative in menu planning and make sure their dietary and cultural needs were met?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint, and how would it be handled?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the home had been rated Good at the previous inspection on 8 March 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 June 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 Waterfield Supported Homes Limited
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Waterfield Supported Homes Limited →
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Waterfield Supported Homes Limited →
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 May 2015.
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 Lewisham
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. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.