CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wellwick House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found unexplained gaps in medicines records, risks from hazardous substances, security weaknesses and inconsistent use of protective equipment. Staffing was short on the first inspection day, although extra staff were brought in and staffing improved on later visits.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People received support with food, drink and healthcare, but staff had not received enough specialist training and regular formal supervision. Records did not always show who had been involved in best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, supported their independence and helped them make choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s needs and relatives were involved. People were supported with communication, family relationships, activities and community access, although daily records and end-of-life plans needed more detail.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality monitoring did not identify several problems found by inspectors, and important records could not always be located. Staff were not clear about the provider’s values, and staff meetings did not have action plans showing how issues would be resolved.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but safety, staff support and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered in July 2020. It was unannounced and included an out-of-hours visit. One inspector visited on 7, 13, 16 and 17 June 2022, speaking with people, relatives, staff and managers and checking care files, staff records, medicines and quality checks.
People were treated with kindness and respect. They were supported to make choices, keep in touch with family, attend activities and use local services. Relatives were positive about the care, food, healthcare and activities.
However, medicines records had unexplained gaps and variable doses were not always recorded. Risks were not always managed, staffing was short on one inspection day, and infection control was not always followed. Staff lacked some specialist training and regular supervision, while quality checks had failed to identify important problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The provider must send an action plan, and the CQC said it would monitor progress and return under its re-inspection programme.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared relaxed with staff, and relatives were positive about the care. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to choose how they spent their time, what they ate and what they wore. Staff encouraged people to do tasks for themselves where they could.
“People were enabled to make choices for themselves.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to maintain important relationships and take part in activities at home and in the community, including walks, cafes, sports and college.
“People could spend their time as they wished and wanted.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had enough food and drink, could help plan meals and were supported to attend health checks and healthcare appointments.
“People were supported to have enough food and drink throughout the day.” from the report
Medicines and other safety risks
seriousMedicines records did not always show whether medicines had been given, and variable doses were not recorded clearly. Other risks included unsafe storage of hazardous substances and weaknesses in checking visitors’ identification.
“Medication Administration Records [MAR] did not provide assurance people using the service received their medication as they should.” from the report
Staffing and community access
needs fixingThere were not enough staff on the first inspection day, including for one-to-one support. Staff said this sometimes stopped people taking part in planned activities or going into the community.
“There were occasions where there were not always enough staff to ensure people could get out as planned and agreed.” from the report
Training and supervision
seriousStaff had not received specialist training for people’s needs, including learning disabilities, autism and communication methods. Formal supervision was not regular, so staff support and practice were not monitored well enough.
“Staff did not receive specialist training relating to the needs of the people they supported or regular formal supervision.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider’s audits had not identified problems with medicines, health and safety, the environment, staff training or supervision. Some key records, including complaints information, could not be located.
“The arrangements to assess and monitor the service were not effective.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, some staff did not use face masks correctly and visitors’ test evidence was not checked. Practice improved on the second day.
“Not all staff used Personal Protective Equipment [PPE] effectively and safely on the first day of inspection.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingEnd-of-life plans did not give enough detail about the care and treatment needed for people to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.
“No information was recorded detailing the care and treatment to be provided to ensure they have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure every medicine dose, including variable doses, is recorded correctly?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff for one-to-one support and planned community activities on every shift?
- 03What specialist training have staff now received for learning disabilities, autism and communication methods such as Makaton or PECS?
- 04How often are medicines, health and safety, infection control, training and supervision now audited, and how are actions followed through?
- 05Have end-of-life plans been updated to record each person’s comfort, pain, physical, mental and emotional needs?
This was the home’s first comprehensive inspection, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; there were no previous ratings to carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 July 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 Wellwick House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 July 2020.
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.