CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Waymead Short Term Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and assessed risks. Staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and environmental safety were appropriately managed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were based on assessments and staff had suitable knowledge and skills. Inspectors recommended reviewing ongoing training so it followed current best practice.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were caring, respectful and knowledgeable about people's preferences. People's privacy, dignity, confidentiality and independence were supported.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was highly personalised. Staff worked with people and those close to them to understand preferences, reduce anxieties, support independence and provide meaningful activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, regular audits and systems for monitoring care and safety. Staff and community professionals described the management and teamwork positively.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Waymead Short Term Care rated Good overall; inspectors found highly personalised care, with Responsive rated Outstanding and staff training needing review.
Inspectors visited the home on 5 and 6 April 2018. The visit was announced. They spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff and community professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, training records, safety documents, complaints and other records.
The home provides short-term respite care for people with learning disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew their needs well. Medicines, staffing, risk assessments, premises and safeguarding arrangements were satisfactory.
Responsive care was rated Outstanding. Staff adapted care to people's changing needs and found creative ways to reduce anxiety, increase independence and support activities in the community. The other four areas were rated Good, and the overall rating remained Good. The home continued to meet all fundamental standards of quality and safety.
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual preferences and needs. Staff adapted their approach when people's needs or anxieties changed.
“People received support that was highly individualised to their personal preferences and individual needs.” from the report
Creative responses
Staff worked with other professionals and families to find practical solutions. This helped people sleep better, manage anxiety, access the community and become more independent.
“The service was responsive and proactive in recognising and adapting to people's changing needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly and respectful interactions. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy and choices.
“People's wellbeing was protected and all interactions observed between staff and people staying at the service were caring, friendly and respectful.” from the report
Safe arrangements
Inspectors found suitable arrangements for safeguarding, risk management, medicines, staffing and the safety of the premises.
“People were protected from the risks of abuse.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used regular audits to check care plans, training, health and safety and other records. Actions were taken when issues were found.
“There was an effective audit system in place that included monthly audits of different aspects of the running of the home” from the report
Ongoing staff training
needs fixingSome ongoing training was not aligned with current best practice. Inspectors specifically noted that fire safety updates were usually every three years rather than assessed at least annually, and that recording and reporting were not included.
“We recommend that the provider review their staff training provision in line with the current best practice guidance on ongoing training for social care staff.” from the report
Availability of respite places
minorSome relatives said they could not always book the dates they wanted. Inspectors noted that demand was greater than the number of respite beds, although this issue was outside the inspection's remit.
“Some relatives spoke with us raising concerns regarding the availability of places at the respite service and how they were not always able to book the dates they wanted.” from the report
Communication records being updated
minorThe home was still documenting people's communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Ask how this work has progressed since the inspection.
“The service was in the process of documenting the communication needs of people in a way that meets the criteria of the standard.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ongoing staff training, especially fire safety and recording and reporting?
- 02How do you assess staffing levels for each person's stay, and what happens if someone needs extra support?
- 03How are each person's communication needs recorded and shared with staff?
- 04Can you offer the dates and frequency of respite stays we need, given the reported demand for places?
- 05How would you support my relative's specific anxieties, health risks, independence goals and preferred activities?
This was an announced inspection covering all five areas; Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led remained Good, while Responsive improved to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 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.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Waymead Short Term Care was rated Good; inspectors found that earlier legionella safety problems had been fixed.
This was an announced, focused inspection on 6 March 2017. The inspector checked whether the home had completed improvements promised after a previous inspection.
The earlier inspection found a legal breach because the home had not done enough to protect people and staff from legionella risks. At this inspection, the home had completed the required risk assessment, water checks and remedial work.
The home was rated Good for safety, and its overall rating was Good. This report only assessed safety, not all five areas of care.
Legionella safety measures
The home completed the required risk assessment and acted on its recommendations. Further work identified during external monitoring was also completed.
“Measures designed to make sure people were safe from the risks of legionella had been fully implemented.” from the report
Regular monitoring
Staff had introduced weekly and monthly water checks. The records showed these checks were being carried out routinely.
“Routine weekly and monthly water checks had been introduced to be carried out by the staff at the service and records showed these were routinely carried out.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are the weekly and monthly water checks carried out now?
- 02Who checks the water-monitoring records and follows up any problems?
- 03When was the most recent external water-monitoring visit, and were any recommendations made?
- 04How do you make sure the legionella safety measures continue to be followed when people are staying at the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe only, checking improvements after the previous inspection; the report does not give new findings for Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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 Waymead Short Term Care
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
81 live-in carers within about an hour of Bracknell Forest
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 £1,300 a week. 74 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
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.