CQC report explained · a care home with nursing
What the CQC found at Waverley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found a delayed response to one person's call for help, unsafe hot water taps and incomplete records of equipment checks. Individual risk assessments were generally suitable, and the home said it acted after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, people's healthcare needs were met, and consent and legal safeguards were handled appropriately. Inspectors received mixed feedback about food quality, choice and specialist diets.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described kind, respectful care. Staff supported choice, independence, privacy and dignity, and involved families when people needed help making decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and changing needs. Activities, cultural and spiritual support were available, but inspectors found concerns about the range of activities and inconsistent recording of complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team and said the home was open and well managed. However, audits had not identified some environmental safety concerns.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found safety problems and rated the safe service Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 March 2019. One adult social care inspector and a registered nurse specialist adviser visited. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, reviewed care and management records, and checked the building.
People generally described the home as caring, homely and well managed. Care was personalised, staff were trained and supported, people were involved in decisions, and activities and healthcare support were available.
However, the safe rating had fallen to Requires Improvement. A call for help was not answered for 20 minutes, two hot water taps lacked safety devices, and some safety checks were not recorded. Inspectors also found concerns about food, activities, complaint records and quality checks. The other four question ratings were Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about how staff treated them. Inspectors found that dignity, respect and human rights were promoted.
“I am definitely well looked after and cared for.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and were updated when needs changed. People were supported to make choices about daily life.
“I can do as I please, get up and go to bed when I want.” from the report
Access to healthcare
The home worked with health professionals and had a weekly advanced nurse practitioner visit. Relatives said people received timely medical help.
“The out of hours doctor came out within 30 minutes when [family member] had a rash. It was treated quickly.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback and influence how the home was run. Staff described the management team as supportive.
“We are constantly asked for feedback.” from the report
Delayed response to help
seriousOne person's calls for assistance were not answered for 20 minutes until inspectors sought help. Inspectors recommended reviewing how staff were deployed.
“The person's calls for assistance were not responded to for 20 minutes until we sought help from a staff member.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousTwo recently installed hot water taps did not have safety devices to reduce the risk of scalding. Some equipment checks were also not recorded.
“Two recently installed hot water taps had not yet been fitted with safety mechanisms to reduce the risk of people being scalded by hot water.” from the report
Food quality and choice
needs fixingPeople and relatives gave mixed feedback about meals. Inspectors heard concerns about undercooked food and limited choice for some specialist diets.
“There have been problems with the food. Sometimes it's been abysmal.” from the report
Complaint records
minorThe home acted on concerns, but information about the number of complaints was inconsistent. Inspectors recommended strengthening the complaints process.
“This demonstrated that although processes were in place to record, investigate and respond to complaints, these were not consistently implemented.” from the report
Activities capacity
needs fixingAn activities coordinator said there was not always enough time to meet everyone's social needs. Concerns about activities had also been raised at meetings.
“Sometimes I feel bad if I haven't had enough time to spend with people.” from the report
Audits missed risks
needs fixingThe home had several audits, but they had not identified the scalding risk from the taps. Inspectors recommended making the auditing system consistently effective.
“However, these were not always effective. For example, environmental audits hadn't identified the risk of scalding from taps without thermostatic valves.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the 20-minute delay in responding to a person's call for help, and how do you now check response times?
- 02Have safety mechanisms been fitted to all hot water taps, and how are environmental and equipment checks recorded?
- 03What changes have been made to food quality and to choices for people with specific dietary needs?
- 04How do you record every complaint and check that concerns have been fully resolved?
- 05How do you make sure there is enough time and staffing for activities that meet each person's interests and social needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five quality questions, with records, people, relatives, staff, the building and a health professional considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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.
Every inspection of Waverley House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“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.