CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Watson House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, personal evacuation plans, safe recruitment and enough suitably skilled staff. Medicines were managed through organised systems, including guidance for medicines given as needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health needs were closely monitored, with input from doctors, dieticians, physiotherapists and other professionals. Staff training and changes to the environment helped people achieve better health, confidence and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and were involved in decisions about their care. Staff understood people's communication needs, preferences and anxieties.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's routines, interests, communication needs and health conditions. The home supported people to build relationships, use local services and receive person-centred end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture, clear management arrangements and effective checks on care quality and safety. Relatives, staff and professionals spoke positively about the leadership and communication.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and highly personalised care, with the caring rating lower than at the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection. One inspector visited on 09 September 2019 and 11 September 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, risk assessments, incident records and audits.
The home supported up to seven people with learning disabilities and related conditions. Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, safe medicines systems, detailed risk guidance and a clean, homely environment. People were supported to access healthcare, build confidence, make choices and take part in community life.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the home provided consistently managed, person-centred care. The Caring rating changed from Outstanding at the previous inspection to Good, although inspectors still found people were treated with dignity, kindness and respect.
Healthcare support
The home worked closely with health professionals and helped people overcome anxieties about appointments and treatment. Inspectors found examples of improved mobility, nutrition and access to healthcare.
“Many people required close monitoring by staff and ongoing input from healthcare professionals.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff and sought their company for reassurance and companionship. Staff gave people time, privacy and control over how support was provided.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff spoke to people in a kind and patient manner, giving people time to respond and acting on their wishes where appropriate.” from the report
Community and independence
People were supported to use local shops and services, access public transport, build friendships and develop everyday skills.
“People were supported to lead full lives and take an active part in their local community.” from the report
Responsive end of life care
The home planned end of life care around people's physical, spiritual, cultural and communication needs. Staff worked with families and professionals to provide care in familiar surroundings where possible.
“The provider consistently delivered end of life care that was person centred and inclusive of families and others important to these people.” from the report
Caring rating changed
minorThe Caring rating fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection to Good. The report does not identify a specific failing behind this change, and inspectors still found caring support to be positive.
“At the last inspection this key question was rated as outstanding. At this inspection this key question was rated good.” from the report
- 01How will you assess and support my relative's specific health, behavioural and communication needs?
- 02How do you make sure as-needed medicines are only given when necessary, and how do you review their use?
- 03How do you keep staffing consistent, and what happens when regular staff are unavailable?
- 04What communication methods would you use to help my relative make choices and express concerns?
- 05How would you support my relative and our family if their health needs changed or they needed end of life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the previous inspection had rated the service Good overall, with Caring rated Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 2019 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, March 2017
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring and person-centred support, while inspectors found only minor medicine-record issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 January 2017. Two inspectors visited, observed care, spoke with people and staff, reviewed five care plans and checked medicines, safety, training and management records. They also considered feedback from relatives and health and care professionals.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, responsive and well-led care. It was rated Outstanding for caring. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine administration, detailed care plans and good support for people's health, choices, communication and activities.
The strongest findings were about kindness, dignity and individual attention. Staff knew people very well and adapted support to their communication, changing needs and preferences. A small number of medicine-record points were identified, but one was corrected immediately and no breach of regulations was recorded.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were exceptionally caring and treated people as equals. They supported people's dignity, privacy, communication and individual choices.
“People were treated with the greatest respect and dignity at all times.” from the report
Strong knowledge of people
Staff knew people's needs and communication methods in detail. This helped them notice when someone needed support, even when the person could not clearly speak.
“Staff had built exceptionally strong and caring relationships with people who they knew very well.” from the report
Personalised activities and support
Activities were shaped around people's abilities, moods, interests and preferences. The home also helped people maintain important family and community relationships.
“People's activities programmes were designed to meet their specific needs.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked closely with health professionals and acted on their advice. Staff responded quickly when people's health or needs changed.
“People's health needs were met very effectively.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Recruitment checks were completed before staff were appointed.
“People's needs were met safely because there were good staffing ratios.” from the report
Medicine storage temperature was not recorded
minorThe manager said the medicine trolley temperature was not checked because the storage area was believed not to exceed 25 degrees Celsius. Families may wish to ask how this is now monitored.
“The register manager told us that the temperature of the medicine trolley was not taken as the place where it was stored never rose above 25 degrees centigrade.” from the report
Pharmacy check report was unavailable
minorA pharmacist had checked medicines in October 2016, but the home had not received a written report. The report says no concerns or recommendations were noted.
“A written report had not been supplied to the service.” from the report
- 01How do you currently record the temperature of the medicine storage area?
- 02Have you received and reviewed the written report from the pharmacist's medicine check?
- 03How will you identify and respond if my relative's health, communication or behaviour changes?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in care-plan reviews and decisions?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative based on their interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations, records, conversations and feedback from relatives and professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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 Watson House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
42 live-in carers within about an hour of West Berkshire
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. 36 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“Titus has compassion, patience, a great sense of humour and a very professional attitude.”
“Barbara treated my mother-in-law with enormous love and compassion and provided an environment where she could feel safe and seen”
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.