CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wellesley
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing arrangements, medicine systems, equipment checks and infection control were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's outcomes were consistently good. Staff had relevant training, people's health needs were reviewed, and food and healthcare support met people's needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect and involved in decisions about their care. Inspectors saw positive relationships, privacy and encouragement to be independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people had access to activities, work experience and community opportunities. Information was adapted through tools such as pictorial menus and talking mats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The service was consistently managed and well-led. The manager used audits, feedback, staff meetings and investigations to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one medication audit area identified for follow-up.
This was a planned inspection over 6 and 13 March 2019. One inspector met all 12 residents, spoke with three residents and three staff members, and reviewed care records, staff files, medicine records, policies, audits and meeting notes.
The inspectors found that people were safe, treated with respect and supported to make choices. Staff knew people well, understood their health needs and provided activities, work experience and community opportunities. Medicines, staffing, food, premises and infection control were all judged safe.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says legal requirements were met, people's outcomes were consistently good, and the service was consistently managed and well-led.
Learning from incidents
When accidents or incidents happened, risks were reassessed and changes were made to protect people while keeping restrictions to a minimum.
“Risk was fully reassessed where there had been an accident or incident.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw warm and positive relationships between residents and staff, with people appearing comfortable and welcomed.
“We observed lots of banter, fun, smiles and positive engagement between people using the service and staff.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in work experience, social activities, clubs and trips. The home also provided a gym and support from a personal trainer.
“People had a variety of activities available to them.” from the report
Good communication with professionals
The home worked with community health and social care professionals, and records showed regular health checks and follow-up care.
“There is good communication. Staff are good at letting you know things and how they feel about things.” from the report
Medication audit area
minorAn audit identified a weak area in the medication checklist and monitoring process. The report says this was due to be discussed at a staff meeting, with NICE guidance to be checked.
“A medication checklist and monitoring form showed that a 'weak area' was identified.” from the report
- 01What was the medication checklist and monitoring process's identified 'weak area', and what action was taken afterwards?
- 02How are staffing numbers calculated for each person's individual support needs?
- 03What activities, work experience and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 04How would my relative's communication needs and preferences be recorded and supported?
- 05How are decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act and any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards reviewed?
This planned inspection looked at the premises and care provided and assessed all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care and outstanding responsiveness, with minor medicine errors picked up by audits.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 and 17 May 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and healthcare professionals. They also checked care records, medicine records, staff files, complaints and safety checks.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Responsive was rated Outstanding. People described the home as their own home and spoke warmly about staff.
Inspectors found personalised care, meaningful activities, work and volunteering opportunities, support with family relationships, and flexible staffing. The home had also invested in more bedrooms, extra communal space, and a gym and relaxation room.
The report says medicines were well managed, although minor errors had occurred and were found quickly through audits. Inspectors found no breaches of regulations.
Personalised activities
People were supported to take part in activities that matched their interests. Some had work experience, paid work or volunteering, as well as holidays and community activities.
“People were supported to do a wide variety of activities and interests which they had chosen to do or had been encouraged to try new things.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw patient and respectful interactions. People and relatives spoke positively about the warmth and care they received.
“People were treated with dignity, kindness and respect.” from the report
Staffing and training
There were enough staff to support people's changing needs and choices. Staff received training in health, safety and more specialised areas.
“There were sufficient staff with the right skills and support to enable them to provide safe, effective and extremely responsive care and support to people.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used checks and audits to review care, records, equipment and the environment. Inspectors found that action was taken when improvements were needed.
“Well managed systems were in place to ensure the quality of care and support were continually reviewed and monitored.” from the report
Improved facilities
Since the previous inspection, the home had created more bedrooms and extra communal areas. It had also added a gym and relaxation room.
“The provider had also built a large gym and relaxation room for people to use.” from the report
Minor medicine errors
minorThe report says minor medicine errors had occurred. Audits identified these quickly, but families should ask how errors are recorded, reviewed and prevented now.
“Where minor errors had been made, these had been picked up quickly via audits.” from the report
- 01How are medicine errors recorded, investigated and used to prevent a repeat?
- 02What is the current position on the DoLS applications mentioned in the report?
- 03How are people and their families involved when care plans are reviewed or needs change?
- 04How is the remaining shared bedroom managed, and are both people still choosing to share?
- 05What work, volunteering, community activities and holidays are currently available for residents?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 2016 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 Wellesley
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.