CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wavertree Nursing and Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Wavertree Nursing and Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well supported, but some records and checks needed improvement.
Inspectors carried out an unannounced focused inspection on 29 March 2023. They looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led because concerns had been raised about risk management. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment files and other records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable infection controls and timely contact with health professionals. People said they felt safe, and staff knew people's needs and preferences.
There were some shortfalls. Some care plans lacked detail or contained inaccurate information. Recruitment checks and reviews of accidents and incidents needed to be stronger. Food and drink monitoring records were not always accurate. The provider had started improving care plans and gave assurances about incident reviews.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and well cared for. Staff responded to requests for support in a timely way.
“People told us they felt safe and well cared for by staff.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff had medicines training and their competence was reviewed regularly. Records showed that medicines were given according to instructions.
“Medicines were managed safely by staff who had received relevant training and had their competency to safely administer medicines regularly reviewed.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Inspectors saw positive interactions, and staff understood people's wishes, preferences, risks and support needs.
“Staff interactions with people were positive and it was clear they knew people well and how to support them.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals and made referrals when people's health or wellbeing changed.
“Staff completed referrals to external professionals in a timely manner when concerns were identified with peoples' health or well-being.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain enough detail or accurate information about people's risks. The provider had introduced new care planning documents to address this.
“However, we identified some improvements were needed to the level of detail and accuracy of information recorded in some people's care plans.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingSome references needed to be obtained from suitable people and verified, and gaps in employment history needed to be explored and explained.
“However, we identified some improvements were needed to ensure that relevant background checks were robust and that gaps in employment history were recorded and explained.” from the report
Incident reviews
needs fixingIncidents were recorded and acted on, but reviews did not always analyse patterns and trends thoroughly enough to help prevent future incidents.
“We identified some improvements needed to ensure a more robust review and analysis of all incidents to look for any patterns and trends.” from the report
Food and drink records
minorMonitoring charts were completed, but staff did not always record accurately how much people ate and drank or the consistency and texture where relevant.
“However, improvements were needed to ensure staff accurately reflected the amount of food and drink people had and, where relevant, it's consistency or texture.” from the report
No permanent manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A management team was in place and the provider was recruiting a permanent manager.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that the new care plans accurately describe my relative's risks, needs and preferences?
- 02How do you now verify recruitment references and explain any gaps in applicants' employment histories?
- 03How are accidents and incidents reviewed for patterns and trends, and what changes have followed?
- 04Who is currently leading the home while you recruit a permanent registered manager?
- 05How do you make sure food and drink charts accurately record amounts and any required consistency or texture?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 May 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.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some improvements needed to meal choices, activities and dementia-friendly areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 7 December 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, visitors and staff. They observed care and activities, checked the building, and reviewed care records, medicines, staff files, complaints and safety checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines practice, personalised care plans, respectful care and effective management systems.
People were supported with food, drink, healthcare, communication and activities. Inspectors noted that some people wanted more choice of meals. They also found that activities were less organised when the activities coordinator was not working, and that some corridors could be made more dementia-friendly.
The report says the home had improved its quality checks since the previous inspection. The manager had plans to improve activities, meal information and the appearance of some corridors.
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw staff respond promptly to call bells. Medicines were administered, stored and recorded safely.
“Medication was correctly administered, stored and recorded at the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy and independence. Inspectors observed caring interactions throughout the inspection.
“The staff are great, caring and kind, they respect my dignity” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's individual needs, risks, communication requirements and desired outcomes. Staff were given clear information about how to provide support.
“People's care was planned in an outcome-focused way.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home had a stable management team and regular audits covering areas such as care plans, safety and the environment. These systems had improved since the previous inspection.
“The overall the home's quality assurance processes were now more robust and reliable.” from the report
Good food hygiene
The kitchen had maintained the highest environmental health rating noted in the report.
“Environmental health had inspected the kitchen in February 2018 and awarded it a rating of five out of five.” from the report
Limited meal choice
minorSome people felt there was not enough choice in the meals. The manager agreed to consider clearer ways to show the available options.
“Some of the people with spoke with felt there was a lack of choice in the meals at the home.” from the report
Uneven activities
needs fixingActivities were well organised when the activities coordinator was present, but were more informal and less consistent at other times.
“However, when the activities coordinator was not at the home the atmosphere was much less lively and the activities were less organised” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
minorSome areas had useful signs and noticeboards, but inspectors said long sections of the corridors were bare and could make it harder for people with dementia to find their way around.
“There were large sections of the corridors that were relatively bare and could be improved to make them more dementia friendly” from the report
- 01What choice of meals is now offered, and how are the options explained to people who need visual or other communication support?
- 02What activities are available on days when the activities coordinator is not working?
- 03What changes have been made to the bare corridor areas to help people living with dementia navigate the home?
- 04How are personalised care plans and risk assessments reviewed with residents, relatives and health professionals?
- 05How have the stronger quality checks identified and addressed problems since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five CQC question areas, with additional detailed attention to oral health support as part of a national review. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 2018 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 Nursing and Care Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Wavertree Nursing and Care Home →
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Wavertree Nursing and Care Home →
- December 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 September 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
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.