CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wellfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home used appropriate infection prevention and control measures. These included PPE, testing, temperature checks, cleaning, ventilation and risk assessments.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control during the coronavirus pandemic.
This was an announced inspection on 23 November 2020. It was part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice. The home had enough personal protective equipment, staff had training in using it, and testing was carried out for people and staff. Extra temperature checks were made when staff started each shift.
The home appeared clean and well ventilated. Staff increased cleaning of frequently touched areas and used risk assessments to manage infection risks. Visitors were restricted at the time, but other ways were provided for people to keep in touch with family and friends.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated. The report only covered infection prevention and control measures.
PPE and staff training
The home had enough PPE and staff had information and training on using it safely and following infection control procedures.
“Enough supplies of PPE were available, and staff had received relevant information and training in the safe 'donning and doffing' of PPE and infection control procedures.” from the report
Testing and monitoring
Testing was completed for people and staff. Staff also had temperature checks at the start of each shift.
“The testing of people and staff was completed in line with the home testing programme.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home appeared clean and had adequate ventilation. Cleaning included frequently touched areas such as handrails and door handles.
“The home appeared clean with adequate ventilation.” from the report
Keeping families connected
Although visitors were not allowed under the restrictions at the time, the home had alternative arrangements to help people maintain contact with family and friends.
“Alternative arrangements were in place for people to maintain contact with family and friends.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are people and staff tested, and what happens if someone has symptoms or a positive test result?
- 03How often are frequently touched areas such as handrails and door handles cleaned?
- 04How can relatives visit or keep in contact if visits are restricted?
- 05When was the home last given an overall CQC rating, and can we see that report?
This was a thematic inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 2020 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but a water safety risk assessment was still being arranged.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 September 2018. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staff files, training, rotas, complaints and safety records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines procedures, suitable recruitment checks, personalised care plans, good support from health professionals, and kind and respectful care.
The home had fixed the safety problems found at the previous inspection in 2016. However, it did not yet have a risk assessment for legionella in the water system. The provider said one had been commissioned for October 2018. The report also noted that the home did not tell people what action it took after analysing satisfaction surveys.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, choices and independence. Inspectors saw calm, positive interactions.
“We observed that staff were kind and respectful to people, they had a good understanding of people's needs, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored and given safely, with staff training and competency checks.
“Medicines management and administration processes were reviewed during the inspection and found to be safe.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, communication needs, health needs and cultural or religious choices.
“Each person had a one-page profile so staff could see at a glance what was important to the person and how best to support them.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People had activities available throughout the week and were supported to join in and access the community. People and relatives were involved in care reviews.
“People had access to a wide range of activities which were provided seven days a week and were well supported by staff to access the community and activities further afield.” from the report
Improvement since 2016
The home had addressed the earlier problems with fire exits, window restrictors and radiator covers. Safe was upgraded to Good and the previous breach was removed.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made the necessary improvements and was no longer in breach of this regulation.” from the report
Water safety assessment pending
needs fixingThe home had tested the water for legionella, but had not completed a risk assessment to identify and assess risks in the water system. The provider said an external assessment had been commissioned.
“We found the provider did not have a risk assessment in relation to legionella to identify and assess any risks in the homes water system.” from the report
Survey results were not shared
minorThe home collected people's views, but did not produce a summary explaining what it had done with the results. The manager said this would change.
“However, we noted the provider did not produce a summary once surveys were analysed to inform people what the home did with their views.” from the report
- 01Has the legionella risk assessment commissioned for October 2018 been completed, and when was it last reviewed?
- 02What checks are now carried out on the home's water system, and how are any problems recorded and acted on?
- 03How do you share survey results with residents and relatives, and what changes have been made as a result?
- 04How are staffing levels reviewed when people's needs change?
- 05How will my relative's personal routines, communication needs, cultural choices and activities be recorded in their care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions and the care and accommodation provided; it also checked whether improvements required after the 2016 inspection had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 October 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 Wellfield House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the 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.