CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wellington and Longforth House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and visits. The previous Good rating was not reviewed in full.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the skills, training and supervision needed to provide care. People's nutritional, physical and mental health needs were monitored, and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- No separate Caring rating is given in this report. Inspectors reported that people received person-centred care and that families were positive about the standard of care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and reflected people's needs, preferences and communication needs. Staff supported relationships and activities, and the home had systems for responding to complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management systems had improved and were being used to identify shortfalls and make changes. Staff, people and families were positive about the leadership and communication.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care and improved leadership, while Safe was inspected but not rated.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 19 May 2021. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and outside professionals. They also observed care and reviewed care records, policies and management records.
The home was clean and infection control arrangements were in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Staff were trained and supported, people's nutritional and health needs were monitored, and care was tailored to people's preferences. People and families spoke positively about the care and leadership.
The ratings for Effective, Responsive and Well-led were Good. Safe was inspected only in relation to infection prevention and control, so it was not rated at this visit. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good, using the findings from this inspection and earlier ratings for areas not reviewed.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements to prevent and manage infection, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Skilled staff
Training, induction and supervision had improved. Senior staff also delivered training tailored to the needs of people living at the home.
“Staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver care effectively.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included clear information about people's likes, dislikes, communication needs and preferred ways of receiving care.
“They contained very helpful and clear information about people.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had strengthened its quality monitoring systems and used audits, feedback and incident reviews to make improvements.
“Improvements in quality monitoring systems had been made.” from the report
Training records still being updated
minorThe new training system was not yet complete because existing training records were still being added. The report said staff were up to date with safeguarding and dementia training.
“The database was still in the process of being updated with existing training records but showed all staff were up to date with safeguarding and dementia training.” from the report
Activity staffing
minorA new activity worker for the Wellington unit was being recruited. Until then, care staff were providing activities.
“At the time of the inspection the registered manager was recruiting a new activity person for the Wellington unit.” from the report
- 01Has the training records system now been fully updated for every member of staff?
- 02Has a new activity worker been appointed for the Wellington unit?
- 03How are activities planned for people whose interests and social needs are different?
- 04How will you continue monitoring infection control and visiting arrangements?
- 05What further improvements have been made since the inspection in May 2021?
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating; Safe was checked only for infection prevention and control, while the other relevant ratings were carried forward from earlier inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 June 2021 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 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe and caring support, but inconsistent care, mealtimes and quality checks needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 19, 22 and 29 August 2019. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care and mealtimes, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People generally felt safe and said staff were kind, respectful and welcoming. Medicines were managed safely, the home was mostly clean and well maintained, and staff supported people to access healthcare. However, the two units offered different experiences. One was person-centred and encouraged independence, while the other was more task-focused.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Caring. It was rated Requires Improvement for Effective, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating was Requires Improvement. This means inspectors found important improvements were needed, although they did not find evidence that people had been harmed.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe at the home. Staff understood how to report concerns and the manager had made appropriate safeguarding referrals.
“People and relatives said they felt the service was safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with dignity and privacy. Relatives described staff as friendly, patient and caring.
“We observed positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Safe medicines and healthcare
Medicines were safely managed and people were supported to see healthcare professionals. Staff recognised changes in health and followed professional advice.
“Medicines were safely managed. People told us they were happy with the way staff supported them with their medicines.” from the report
Good care on Longforth
Inspectors found the Longforth unit encouraged independence and offered a range of activities for people with mental health needs.
“The Longforth unit was very person centred, independence was being promoted and plenty of activities” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's audits did not always identify or resolve shortfalls. This was a breach of Regulation 17 and placed people at risk of harm.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed however, systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided to people were not robust enough to demonstrate good governance.” from the report
Uneven mealtime experience
needs fixingOn the Wellington unit, some people waited for breakfast and lunch was disorganised. People were not always offered choices, and some food was cold.
“Most people were not offered choices regarding their meals, desserts or refreshments.” from the report
Training records were unclear
needs fixingInspectors could not clearly confirm that all staff had received the required supervision and training. Staff gave mixed accounts of their training.
“We could not clearly see all staff had received regular supervisions and all of the provider's mandatory training.” from the report
Care was not equally person-centred
needs fixingThe Wellington unit was described as more institutional and task-focused than Longforth. Some people did not have life histories recorded, making it less clear how their interests were being supported.
“The Longforth unit was very person centred, independence was being promoted and plenty of activities with the Wellington unit being more institutional and task orientated.” from the report
Families were not always involved
needs fixingCare plans were reviewed, but records did not always show that people and relatives had taken part in those reviews.
“However, they did not always show that people and their families had been involved.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to mealtimes on the Wellington unit, and how do you check that people are offered choices and receive warm food?
- 02How do you now make sure care reviews involve the person and their family where appropriate?
- 03What improvements have been made to activities and life-history records on the Wellington unit?
- 04How do you now record and check staff training, induction and regular supervision?
- 05What changes have been made to quality audits so that problems are identified, followed up and confirmed as fixed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the ratings for Effective, Responsive and Well-led falling from Good at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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.
Every inspection of Wellington and Longforth House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Wellington and Longforth House →
- October 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Wellington and Longforth House →
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.