CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Watts Healthcare Ltd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found good arrangements for medicines, staffing, risk assessments and protecting people from abuse. However, admission isolation, legionella controls, safeguarding reporting and a fire door needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff were trained, and people received suitable food, drinks and healthcare support. The home also followed the Mental Capacity Act principles described in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported them to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People had activities, accessible information, support to keep in touch with relatives and care planning for the end of life.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture and regular checks of care, medicines, incidents, staffing and the building. Some audits had not identified all the work needed, but the manager updated the audit systems during the inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that safety needed improvement, including infection control on admission and legionella checks.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. Two inspectors visited on 6 and 11 May 2021. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People appeared happy and relaxed, and inspectors found kind care, personalised support, activities, good food choices and appropriate help with health needs.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. People had not always been isolated for the required time when admitted. Checks to prevent legionella were not robust, and one safeguarding incident had not been reported correctly. A fire door also created a near miss.
The manager took action during the inspection. This included starting weekly flushing of empty rooms, arranging a legionella assessment, reporting the safeguarding incident and asking the fire service to review the fire door and escape arrangements.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff and said they were happy. Staff respected privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“People looked relaxed and happy, there was plenty of laughter, fun and interaction.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, life histories, interests, preferences and cultural or religious needs. Relatives were involved where appropriate.
“Care plans were person centred and contained information about how each person should be supported in all areas of their care and support.” from the report
Good health support
Staff acted when people became unwell or lost weight, and made referrals to health professionals when needed.
“When people needed medical attention, this was quickly identified, and appropriate action was taken.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People could choose from varied activities, including one-to-one activities in their bedrooms. The home also helped people keep in touch with relatives during restrictions.
“A range of activities were available for people who lived at the service and people were able to choose if they wished to join in with activities.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff knew the manager and felt listened to. The home used regular checks, surveys and family messaging to gather feedback and share updates.
“The provider carried out checks of the service on a monthly basis.” from the report
Admission isolation
seriousInspectors were not assured that people were always admitted safely. Some people had not been isolated for the required period on admission.
“People had not always been isolated for the required amount of time on admission.” from the report
Legionella controls
seriousThe home had not flushed water outlets in empty rooms weekly as required. The manager started a new process and arranged a legionella risk assessment during the inspection.
“Systems to manage the risk of legionella infection were not robust.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
seriousOne incident involving a verbal and physical altercation between three people had not been reported correctly to the local authority. The manager reported it after inspectors raised it.
“Where safeguarding concerns had been received, appropriate action had not always been taken to address these.” from the report
Fire door risk
seriousA fire door could open against a person's bedroom door. Inspectors saw this create a near miss, so the manager arranged a fire service review.
“We observed the person trying to leave their bedroom door at the same time as a staff member came through the fire door, which could have resulted in injury.” from the report
Audits missed some problems
needs fixingSome audits had not been strong enough to identify all areas needing work. Updated audit systems were introduced during the inspection.
“Some audits hadn't been robust enough to pick up areas which required additional work.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure every new person is isolated for the required time on admission?
- 02When was the last legionella risk assessment completed, and how do you record weekly flushing of empty rooms?
- 03How are safeguarding incidents reported to the local authority, and what did you learn from the incident mentioned in the report?
- 04What was the outcome of the fire service review of the fire door and evacuation routes?
- 05How do your updated audits check that safety problems are identified and fixed promptly?
This was the first planned inspection and covered the premises, care and all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 June 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.
Every inspection of Watts Healthcare Ltd
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 August 2019.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway
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 £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.