CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wavertree Bungalow
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risk assessments, environmental safety checks and medicines systems were not always effective. There were enough staff and safeguarding arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supported people's health, food and communication needs. Consent and the use of assistive technology were not always handled in line with legal guidance.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness and respect, and staff knew their preferences. At some mealtimes, staff did not always involve people directly in choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's routines and preferences, and staff understood their communication needs. Meaningful activities were limited at first, but improvements were being made.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider's monitoring systems did not identify important safety, medicines, cleanliness and quality problems. The newer manager was making improvements and had an ongoing improvement plan.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but safety checks, medicines and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was the first inspection since the service became registered as a care home. It was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five CQC questions. Inspectors visited on 30 November 2022, 5 December 2022 and 24 January 2023. They spoke with people staying there, relatives and staff, and checked care and medicines records.
People were treated kindly and staff knew them well. There were enough staff, care was generally responsive, and people were supported with their health needs. Relatives said people were safe, happy and well treated.
The main problems were with safety and management oversight. Risk assessments were missing at first, the environment and some outdoor areas were not fully safe, and medicines records and stock checks were not reliable. The manager made some immediate improvements during the inspection, but further work was needed.
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Staffing was increased when required, and staff had suitable skills and experience.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind relationships
People appeared comfortable and relaxed with staff. Staff knew what mattered to people and how they preferred to be supported.
“Staff members knew what was important to people and how they wanted to be supported.” from the report
Health support
Nursing staff monitored people's health and worked with healthcare professionals and relatives when needed.
“People were effectively supported with their ongoing health needs.” from the report
Improvements during inspection
The manager acted on some concerns during the inspection. Risk assessments were added, cleaning was improved and environmental work was started.
“The provider took prompt action during the inspection process to mitigate risk to people.” from the report
Medicines records and stock
seriousMedicines were not always recorded accurately. Stock counts, dates, administration records and checks when medicines were brought in or taken away were not consistently reliable.
“The systems in place for administering people's medication were not always safe.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousSome parts of the building and garden still posed risks when inspectors visited. There was no overall assessment of safety from the perspective of the people using the home.
“However, there remained no overall assessment of the safety of the environment from the perspective of the people staying at the home.” from the report
Consent and privacy
needs fixingThe use of assistive technology was not always assessed as the least restrictive option, and best-interest decisions were not always properly recorded.
“The use of assistive technology and ensuring this was the least restrictive option had not always been effectively assessed and planned for;” from the report
Records and support levels
needs fixingSome records conflicted with people's assessed care needs. Inspectors recommended reviewing how the required level of support was decided and recorded.
“There was some confusion amongst staff regarding what level of support people required to remain safe and what needed to be recorded.” from the report
Limited homely space and activities
minorThe home had a clinical feel and limited communal space. At first, people had few meaningful activities, although more activities and assessments were being planned.
“Many areas of the home had an institutional and clinical feel.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine stock counts, recording and checking when medicines arrive or leave?
- 02How have you assessed and repaired the garden and other areas that inspectors said could pose safety risks?
- 03How do you now check that people's risk assessments and support instructions are complete and up to date?
- 04How do you obtain consent and record best-interest decisions when using assistive technology?
- 05What meaningful activities and quieter spaces are now available for people during short stays?
This was the first planned, unannounced inspection of the newly registered care home and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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.
Every inspection of Wavertree Bungalow
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 May 2016.
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 Liverpool
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. 83 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“All in all Kama b cared for the owner really well, every aspect of her care was of the highest standard.”
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.