CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wellington Park Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Wellington Park Nursing Home is Rated Good overall, but well-led is Requires Improvement because some care records and checks did not identify problems.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 19 April 2021. Inspectors reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records, observed care, spoke with people and staff, and contacted relatives.
Inspectors found people were safe, staff were available, medicines were generally managed safely, and infection control was effective. Staff were described as kind and trained, and people received support with food, drink and healthcare.
There were shortcomings in some risk assessments, fluid monitoring records, best-interest decision records and management checks. The home acted on the inspectors' feedback and sent evidence that some records and medicines competency checks had been updated.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection in 2018. Safe and Effective were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs and keep them safe, including one-to-one support at mealtimes where needed.
“During the inspection we observed there to be enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Infection control
The home was clean and had procedures, equipment and guidance to reduce infection risks, including arrangements linked to COVID-19.
“People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found that staff had the skills to support people effectively.
“People were supported by care staff who had the training and skills to do so.” from the report
Food and choice
People were offered meal choices and alternatives. Their dietary needs, including specialist and culturally appropriate requirements, were recorded.
“People were offered a choice of meals and alternatives if they did not like what was on the menu.” from the report
Risk assessments lacked detail
needs fixingSome assessments did not explain people’s individual risks, triggers or the actions staff should take. This included risks linked to behaviours that challenge and diabetes.
“some risk assessments were not always comprehensive and lacked person centred, detailed guidance for staff on how to minimise risk and keep people safe.” from the report
Fluid records were incomplete
needs fixingSome fluid monitoring charts had gaps. They did not set out recommended minimum or maximum amounts, or show that the charts had been reviewed so action could be taken.
“records that we looked at had gaps in recording which meant the recording was inconsistent.” from the report
Checks did not spot all problems
needs fixingThe home had audits, but they did not always identify the recording and care-planning issues found during the inspection. CQC recommended stronger governance arrangements.
“However, these did not always identify the issues we identified as part of this inspection.” from the report
Medicines competency checks
needs fixingAll staff had medicines training, but observed assessments had not been completed to confirm their practical competence at the time of inspection. The manager later provided confirmation that these checks had been completed.
“observed assessments had not been completed to confirm staff competency when administering medicines.” from the report
Some recruitment records
minorThree staff files did not always show that employment gaps had been explored or references verified. The manager said future checks would be more thorough.
“for three staff files we found that gaps in employment had not always been explored and references received had not always been verified” from the report
- 01How have you updated the risk assessments for people with diabetes or behaviours that challenge, and how do you make sure staff follow the guidance?
- 02What minimum fluid amounts are recorded for people who need fluid monitoring, and who checks the charts each day?
- 03How do your audits now identify incomplete care records, fluid charts and best-interest decisions?
- 04When were medicines competency assessments completed for all staff, and how often are they repeated?
- 05How do you record relatives’ and healthcare professionals’ involvement in best-interest decisions?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and end-of-life planning needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 19 and 23 April 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records, safety documents and quality checks.
The home provided nursing and residential care for up to 28 people, with 24 people living there at the inspection. Inspectors found people appeared happy and relaxed. People and relatives said they felt safe, and inspectors found safe medicines management, enough staff and suitable risk assessments.
Care plans were detailed and reviewed regularly. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and respect, and supported their choices and independence. The home offered activities, worked with health professionals and investigated complaints.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the evidence supported a good standard of care at the time of this inspection, and the overall rating had not changed since the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe in the home. Inspectors found that risks were assessed and staff had clear guidance on keeping people safe.
“People and relatives confirmed that there was always staff available and visible around the home.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines records were complete, with no identified omissions. Staff had training and competency checks, and managers carried out regular audits.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships and staff supporting people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“Care staff were seen to engage with people in a warm and gentle manner.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, risks and wishes. Staff showed they understood that people needed individual support.
“Care plans were person centred and detailed people's support needs in areas such as communication, personal safety, mobility, skin integrity and eating and drinking.” from the report
Active management oversight
The home used audits, meetings, surveys and daily checks to monitor care and respond to issues.
“The registered manager had a number of systems and processes in place to monitor and oversee the management and quality of care provision” from the report
Drinks were not always visible
needs fixingDrinks were not always clearly visible to people with limited mobility, so they might not have been able to see or request a drink. The manager addressed this during the inspection.
“However, we did highlight to the registered manager and provider that drinks were not always clearly visible to people who had limited mobility, for them to be able to visibly see and request a drink.” from the report
Fluid charts lacked guidance
needs fixingFluid charts did not always state the person's recommended fluid intake. This could make it harder for staff to judge whether someone was drinking enough, especially where low intake was recorded.
“However, we did note that for fluid charts the service did not always state an individuals recommended fluid intake as guidance for care staff to monitor against especially if low fluid intake had been recorded.” from the report
End-of-life wishes were not always recorded
needs fixingSome care plans did not include people's end-of-life wishes. The manager said the home would encourage people and relatives to discuss and record these preferences.
“However, some care plans did not have any information about people's end of life wishes.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure drinks are clearly visible and easy to request for people with limited mobility?
- 02How do you record each person's recommended fluid intake and respond when their intake is low?
- 03How do you discuss and record end-of-life wishes with people and their relatives?
- 04How often are care plans reviewed, and how quickly are they updated when someone's needs change?
- 05What improvements have been made since the April 2018 inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the overall Good rating carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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.
Every inspection of Wellington Park Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Wellington Park Nursing Home →
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Wellington Park Nursing Home →
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 February 2014.
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 Enfield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.