CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wemyss Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and stronger management, with some work still needed on visiting arrangements and medicine patch records.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 28 October 2021. Two inspectors visited, an Expert by Experience spoke to relatives by phone, and inspectors spoke with staff and professionals. They also checked care records, medicine records, training information and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safer risk assessments, safe medicine systems and good infection control arrangements. They also found better audits, feedback systems and action planning.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with two breaches of regulations. The home had made enough improvement to meet those legal requirements, so it was no longer in breach. The inspection did not assess Caring, Effective or Responsive.
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had embedded improvements into everyday practice, including medicine management and systems for monitoring quality.
“The home had made improvements since our last inspection which had been embedded into daily practice.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks and training were in place.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff did not appear rushed and people's requests for support were responded to in a timely manner.” from the report
Safer medicines practice
Trained staff administered medicines and the electronic records checked by inspectors were complete, including instructions for medicines given when needed.
“Those records seen were complete and included individual protocols for the use of 'when required' (PRN) medicines.” from the report
Better management oversight
The provider had introduced regular audits and action plans. Staff also had lead responsibilities for important areas such as medicines and infection control.
“The provider had implemented effective systems to monitor and improve the service.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that visits were being facilitated in line with current guidance. They asked the provider to review its approach so people's human rights were met.
“We were somewhat assured the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
Medicine patch records
minorThe location of a medicine patch had not been recorded on a body map. The registered manager said this would be corrected.
“However, the recording of the location of patch to administer medicine through the skin had not been documented on a body map.” from the report
- 01How have you changed your visiting arrangements since inspectors asked you to review them?
- 02How do you now record the location of medicine patches on body maps?
- 03How do you check that risk assessments and care plans remain current for each person?
- 04What were the results of your most recent surveys of residents, relatives and staff?
- 05Which ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection still apply to Caring, Effective and Responsive?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 November 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, November 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, care records, staff training and management systems.
This was a focused inspection on 22 September 2020. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe and Well-led, after concerns about medicines, risks and how the manager worked with staff. They reviewed records, spoke with relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked infection control.
The home was not always safe. Medicines records and guidance were incomplete, some risks were not properly assessed or recorded, and staff did not always have the training or induction needed for their work. Inspectors found no evidence that people had been harmed, but said people were placed at risk.
Management systems did not reliably identify or correct these problems. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in January 2018, to Requires Improvement. The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. The other areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, supported testing and had suitable hygiene and outbreak arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Kind care
Relatives gave positive feedback about staff being caring, patient and knowledgeable about people's individual needs.
“The staff we speak to all seem professional, caring, patient, they really do care about their residents” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Relatives said they felt their loved ones were safe and could raise concerns.
“Staff had an awareness and understanding of abuse and knew what to do to make sure that concerns were reported” from the report
Partnership working
Health and social care professionals said the home worked transparently with other agencies to support joined-up care.
“The team worked effectively in partnership with other agencies to support people at the home.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousInstructions for medicines needed when required were not always kept with the medicine records. Cream applications and other medicine information were not always recorded clearly, creating a risk that people would not receive medicines as prescribed.
“Guidance about when to use when required (PRN) medicines was not kept with people's Medicines Administration Records (MAR).” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousSome care plans did not contain current or complete information about conditions, nutrition or repositioning. Records did not always show that planned safety checks had taken place.
“Information about risks and safety was not always comprehensive or up to date.” from the report
Staff induction and training
seriousNot all staff received an induction or had the chance to read care plans before supporting people. Some staff had not been trained to support people whose behaviour could challenge.
“Not all staff had an induction when starting at the service and stated they were not given the opportunity to read care plans before supporting individuals.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe home's systems did not identify the problems found by inspectors. Mixed paper and electronic records made it difficult to track risks and improvements.
“Governance and performance management was not always reliable and effective.” from the report
Staff morale
needs fixingSome staff said they did not feel listened to, respected, valued or supported. Staff gave mixed views about the manager's approach, including concerns about tone and language.
“Some staff did not always feel listened to, respected, valued or supported and reported low morale.” from the report
Staffing consistency
needs fixingStaff reported shortages at some times, high turnover and absences not always being covered by suitably skilled staff. Inspectors said this could make care less consistent.
“Turnover of staff was high which meant people's care and support could be inconsistent.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure PRN medicines have clear instructions and are given and recorded correctly?
- 02How are you now checking that care plans contain up-to-date guidance for diabetes, epilepsy, nutrition and repositioning?
- 03Have all staff completed induction and the training needed to support people whose behaviour can challenge?
- 04How are staffing shortages and high turnover being managed, and how do you make sure replacements are suitably skilled?
- 05What action has been taken in response to staff feedback about morale, communication and being able to raise concerns?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were used. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 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.
Every inspection of Wemyss Lodge
6 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- November 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
44 live-in carers within about an hour of Swindon
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 £990 to £1,280 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.