CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Waterside Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and inspectors found enough staff and good infection control. They identified problems with the storage, labelling and dating of some topical creams.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported with food, drinks and health needs. Staff had improved training and induction, although some communal bathroom shower rails needed repair.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were seen to be warm, kind and respectful. People were supported to make choices, maintain independence and have their privacy respected.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- The report does not give a separate rating for Responsive. It says staff provided responsive and unhurried care, but this key question was not separately rated in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective systems for checking care quality, records, equipment and the environment. People, relatives and staff described management as approachable and the culture as open and positive.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and clear improvements, but topical cream storage needed attention.
Inspectors made an unannounced follow-up visit over two days. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe care, kind support, improved food and drink support, and better systems for managing quality.
There were still some issues. Two people's topical creams were kept in unlocked bathroom cupboards, and one cream had an unreadable label and no opening date. Some communal bathroom shower rails were also broken. CQC made a recommendation about topical creams.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in July 2023. The provider had been in breach of regulations at that inspection, but inspectors found enough improvement and said the home was no longer in breach.
Enough staff
People, relatives and staff told inspectors there were enough staff. Inspectors found care was responsive and unhurried.
“There were sufficient staff to provide responsive and unhurried care.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's preferences and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“Staff were caring, compassionate and kind.” from the report
Improved food and drink support
People were offered meal choices, alternatives, drinks and snacks. Inspectors saw staff supporting people to eat and drink.
“People were offered choices of meals and offered alternatives.” from the report
Better staff training
Staff received role-specific training, completed induction and were assessed before working alone.
“New staff completed an induction and shadowed existing staff.” from the report
Improved management systems
Since the previous inspection, the home had strengthened its checks on care quality, records, equipment and the environment.
“At this inspection we found that there were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care, accuracy of documentation, and safety of the environment and equipment.” from the report
Topical cream storage
needs fixingTwo people's topical creams were kept in unlocked bathroom cupboards. One cream had an unreadable label and no opening date, creating a risk that an out-of-date product could be used.
“One of the topical creams had an unreadable label and no date of the opening.” from the report
Broken shower rails
minorSome communal bathrooms needed repairs and modernisation. Inspectors specifically identified broken shower rails.
“For example, some shower rails were broken and required replacement.” from the report
- 01How are topical creams now labelled, dated when opened and stored securely?
- 02What action has been taken to replace the broken shower rails, and when will this be completed?
- 03How will you make sure the improvements found in this inspection continue?
- 04How do you respond when a person's care needs, health or nutrition needs change?
- 05How are families told about complaints, incidents or changes in their relative's care?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection of Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led; the overall rating used the findings from this visit and ratings for any key questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 2024 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, July 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found serious safety, staffing, nutrition and management concerns, and issued a warning notice.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 and 16 May 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found damaged or unsuitable window restrictors, unsecured wardrobes, food safety concerns, poor cleanliness and care records that did not always explain people's health risks or medicines needs.
People did not always receive enough support with food and drink, personal care, dignity, communication or activities. Staff training records were unclear, and many staff had not completed training about learning disabilities, mental capacity or deprivation of liberty safeguards.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2019 to Requires Improvement. The report says the provider must make improvements and that CQC will monitor progress through an action plan and further information.
Access to healthcare
People were referred to health professionals when concerns were identified, including doctors, mental health services and speech and language therapy services.
“People had access to health professionals when they needed.” from the report
Recruitment checks
Inspectors found that recruitment records included checks designed to assess whether staff were suitable to work at the home.
“Staff files showed recruitment checks were robust, which included checks on staff through the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).” from the report
Medicines storage
Medicines were stored securely, audits took place and staff received medicines training before administering medicines.
“Medicines were stored securely and safely.” from the report
Complaints response
Relatives knew how to complain, and inspectors found that the registered manager responded to complaints.
“There was a complaints procedure, relatives told us they knew how to complain and we could see that the registered manager responded to complaints when they were made.” from the report
Unsafe environment and risk records
seriousDamaged or unsuitable window restrictors, unsecured wardrobes and inaccurate health risk information could have left people at risk of serious or significant injury.
“Environmental risks associated with people's care and support had not been assessed or mitigated. This left people at risk of significant injury.” from the report
Food, drink and choking risks
seriousA person experiencing weight loss was not consistently supported to eat and drink. Kitchen information was out of date and did not match people's care records, increasing the risk of choking.
“The provider had failed to ensure that people's nutritional and hydration needs were met effectively.” from the report
Staff training
seriousTraining records were conflicting. Fewer than 7% of staff had completed learning disability training, and 17 staff had no mental capacity or deprivation of liberty safeguards training.
“The provider had not ensured that staff had the relevant qualifications, competence and skills necessary for their roles.” from the report
Dignity and response to distress
seriousInspectors saw people showing distress or needing personal care without staff responding promptly. People were not always treated with dignity and respect.
“During both days of our inspection visits inspectors saw occasions when people appeared to be in distress with staff not appearing to respond.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
needs fixingCare plans did not always include people's choices, interests, communication needs or goals. Some people had limited opportunities for individual activities and social contact.
“There was no focus on encouraging people to develop relationships or to follow individual interests or hobbies.” from the report
- 01What has been done to replace and regularly check all window restrictors, and how are other environmental risks now identified?
- 02How will staff support people who are losing weight or need help to eat and drink, and how are food and fluid records checked?
- 03How many staff have now completed learning disability, mental capacity and deprivation of liberty safeguards training?
- 04How are care plans being updated to record each person's communication needs, preferences, interests and goals?
- 05How are managers checking that concerns about dignity, distress, cleanliness, food safety and maintenance are acted on promptly?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; all five ratings changed from Good at the 2019 inspection to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 July 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.
Every inspection of Waterside Care Centre
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2023Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2010.
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 Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.