CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Weald Hall Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The inspector found that refurbishment risks were being managed through risk assessments, closed-off areas, staff escorts and regular checks. The full Safe question was not assessed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found refurbishment risks were controlled and the previous Good overall rating remains.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 1 March 2023. One inspector checked whether building works were putting people at risk. The inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed complaints, care records and risk assessments.
The home was being fully refurbished. Inspectors found that areas were closed off or managed safely, and that people could still use bathing facilities. People and relatives said the work had not affected safety or wellbeing.
The home was rated inspected but not rated in this visit. The previous overall rating of Good, published in October 2022, remains unchanged. This inspection did not assess the whole Safe question or the other four questions.
Refurbishment risks controlled
The home used risk assessments and controls to keep people away from unsafe work areas. Work was coordinated with care and management staff when areas could not be closed.
“Risk assessments were in place and detailed the controls used to ensure people's safety.” from the report
Access to bathing maintained
Bathrooms were refurbished one at a time, with two facilities available throughout. Records showed that people continued to receive baths or showers in line with their preferences.
“We checked records and could see people were receiving baths or showers in keeping with their preferences.” from the report
People reported positive experiences
People and relatives told inspectors that the building work had not affected safety or wellbeing. They praised the improvements and communication from builders.
“There has been no impact on my [family member] during the refurbishment.” from the report
No registered manager in post
minorThere was no registered manager at the time of the visit. The operations manager had applied to register, and CQC was still assessing the application.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01How will you keep people safe when any remaining refurbishment work is taking place?
- 02Are all bathrooms and showers now available, and how do you record people's bathing preferences?
- 03Has the application for the operations manager to become the registered manager been approved?
- 04When is the next comprehensive inspection expected to assess all five CQC questions?
This was a targeted inspection of concerns about building works and did not assess the whole Safe question or the other four questions; the previous overall Good rating remains. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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, October 2022
Weald Hall Residential Home rated Good; inspectors found safer care and stronger management after earlier breaches.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 28 September 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, training information, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs and infection control measures were in place. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and risks were reviewed.
The home had previously been rated Requires improvement, with breaches of regulations. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach. The overall rating changed to Good, but the other three questions were not inspected during this visit.
Safer risk management
Risk assessments were in place, kept up to date and used to guide staff. Care records were accurate and securely stored.
“Risk assessments were reviewed and remained up to date to meet people's needs and reduce risks.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff completed training and competency checks before supporting people with medicines.
“People were given their medicines safely and as prescribed, and it was recorded on their medicine administration record.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels and skills matched people's needs. New staff received induction training and shadowing.
“The numbers and skills of staff matched the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Improved management
A new manager had worked with the provider and staff to address earlier problems. Quality audits included checks on medicines.
“There was an effective quality audit system including a medication audit which correlated to medication records.” from the report
People and relatives felt positive
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care, staff and improvements since the new manager joined.
“People we spoke with were complimentary of the service and staff” from the report
Manager not yet registered
minorThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. The manager had applied to CQC to become registered.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now been registered with CQC, and if not, what is the current position?
- 02How do you check that risk assessments and care records remain up to date?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given safely and recorded correctly?
- 04What quality audits and checks are carried out now, and how are problems followed up?
- 05What were the previous breaches, and what evidence shows that the improvements have been maintained?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 2022 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 Weald Hall Residential Home
10 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2023Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2022Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.