CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wendleberrie House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Wendleberrie House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The inspection was an unannounced, targeted visit on 16 March 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control, including visitors, PPE, testing, cleaning and social distancing.
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infections. They found regular cleaning, enough PPE, COVID-19 testing, staff training and infection-control checks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors, including relatives when safe, had to follow several infection-control checks before entering.
“Safe arrangements were in place for visitors to the service including health professionals, and relatives when it was safe to do so.” from the report
Cleaning and PPE
The home was clean, high-touch areas were regularly disinfected and staff were observed using PPE correctly.
“The environment was clean. Enhanced cleaning and disinfection took place throughout the home to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.” from the report
Testing and training
Staff and residents were tested regularly. Staff also received extra training on preventing the spread of coronavirus and using PPE.
“Regular testing for COVID-19 was in place for staff and people using the service.” from the report
Staff teamwork
Staff worked flexibly and the home made little use of agency staff, which inspectors said supported consistent care and reduced infection risk.
“Staff worked flexibly as a supportive team and were willing to work extra shifts when needed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are visitors still asked to complete health checks, use PPE and follow your current infection-control process?
- 02How often are staff and residents currently tested for COVID-19 or other infections?
- 03How do you check that high-touch areas, communal areas and equipment are cleaned regularly?
- 04What infection-control training do staff receive, including training on putting on and removing PPE?
- 05How do you manage staffing if people are absent, and how much agency staff do you use now?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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, February 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home’s management systems still required improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 8 January 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, visitors and staff, observed care, and checked care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, received their medicines safely, had access to healthcare, were treated with kindness and dignity, and had care plans and activities suited to their needs.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home had introduced better systems for records, accidents, staff recruitment and training, and applications to restrict a person's liberty. Inspectors said these systems needed more time to become fully established.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the February 2018 inspection to Good. The Well-led rating remained Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed treating people with dignity and respect. They knew people well and responded promptly when people needed help.
“The staff promoted people's individuality and their approach was kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff competence was checked regularly.
“People's medicines were appropriately managed to ensure they were administered to people safely.” from the report
Personalised support
People and relatives helped shape assessments and care plans. Activities reflected people's interests and people could personalise their rooms.
“The care plans included information about people's emotional, physical and spiritual needs, as well as mobility and health needs.” from the report
Improved overall rating
The overall rating rose from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good. Safe, Effective and Caring also improved to Good.
“At this inspection we found the provider was in the process of implementing more robust records management and quality audit systems.” from the report
Management systems not fully embedded
needs fixingThe home had started improving its monitoring and record systems, but inspectors could not yet see that these changes were consistently established. This affected the Well-led rating.
“Time was needed to fully embed the systems to drive continuous improvement at the service.” from the report
Safeguarding response
seriousOne unexplained bruise found when a person arrived at the home was not initially referred as a possible safeguarding concern. The provider later recognised how it should have been handled.
“The provider had not raised this as a potential safeguarding concern, but later realised any unexplained bruising found on admission, should be treated under the safeguarding procedures.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment record
needs fixingOne staff file contained only one reference, although the provider’s policy aimed to obtain two. The provider had requested another reference but had not followed it up.
“within one staff file only one reference was available.” from the report
Bath hoist unavailable
needs fixingThe bath hoist was not fit for use, although inspectors were told no one currently used it. A replacement was planned after the inspection.
“However, we noted the bath hoist was not fit for use, the provider confirmed no people currently used the bath hoist.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the records and quality monitoring systems since this inspection, and how do you check that they are being used consistently?
- 02How do you identify and report unexplained bruising or other possible safeguarding concerns when someone moves into the home?
- 03Has the bath hoist been replaced, and what bathing choices are currently available?
- 04How do you make sure all required staff references and recruitment checks are complete before staff work with residents?
- 05How are Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications recorded, tracked and reviewed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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 Wendleberrie House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 September 2012.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.