CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wensley House Residential 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practices but were not assured about shielding and social distancing.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 16 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found that visitors were kept safe, personal protective equipment was used properly, the home was clean and testing arrangements were in place. People were supported to keep in touch with relatives through calls, window visits and an internal visiting pod.
Inspectors were not assured that shielding and social distancing rules were being met. They also recommended better recording when people could not consent to COVID-19 testing. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Clean environment
The home was visibly clean, with cleaning schedules showing how often cleaning and deep cleaning took place.
“The environment was visibly clean. Cleaning schedules evidenced the frequency of cleaning undertaken, including regular deep cleaning of the service.” from the report
Use of protective equipment
Inspectors observed masks, gloves and aprons being used, alongside good hygiene practices.
“Appropriate infection prevention control practices were observed, such as the wearing of masks, gloves, aprons and also included good hygiene practices.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to keep in touch through telephone calls, window visits and an internal visiting pod. End-of-life visits were also supported with infection precautions.
“An internal visiting pod had been built within the service and this enables people to see their relatives.” from the report
Visitor safety
The home had measures to reduce infection risks during visits, including temperature checks, protective equipment and separate entrances.
“Suitable measures were in place such as temperature checks, Personal Protective Equipment [PPE] and separate entrances to the building to keep infection risks to a minimum.” from the report
Shielding and social distancing
seriousInspectors could not be assured that shielding and social distancing rules were being followed.
“We were not assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Recording consent for testing
needs fixingThe home was asked to improve its records when people did not have the capacity to consent to COVID-19 testing.
“However, we are recommending they improve their processes where people do not have the capacity to consent to COVID-19 testing as this was not recorded.” from the report
- 01How are shielding and social distancing rules being followed now?
- 02How do you record decisions about COVID-19 testing when a person cannot consent?
- 03What infection-control training have staff completed, and how is correct use of protective equipment checked?
- 04How can relatives visit, including when someone is receiving end-of-life care?
- 05How often are communal areas and the rest of the home cleaned?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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
Wensley House Residential Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe and caring support, but training, care planning, activities and leadership still needed work.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 and 18 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Caring. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable safeguarding procedures and respectful care. People generally said they felt safe and well cared for.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Some staff lacked first aid or medicines training, and not all staff received regular formal supervision. Care plans did not always give enough person-centred guidance, and people lacked opportunities for activities in the local community.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement, although the report says significant improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach of regulations. This was the third consecutive inspection with this overall rating.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Call alarms were answered in good time and recruitment checks were robust.
“The deployment of staff was appropriate and there were enough staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe care
Risks were assessed, medicines were given as prescribed and safeguarding arrangements had improved. The home was clean and staff had equipment to help prevent infection.
“Medication practices were safe, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People and relatives described good care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, respecting privacy and encouraging independence.
“People and those acting on their behalf told us they were treated with care, kindness, respect and dignity.” from the report
Complaints were handled
The home had arrangements to record, investigate and respond to complaints. People and relatives felt able to raise concerns.
“Each complaint had been responded to and investigated in an open and transparent way.” from the report
Training gaps
needs fixingNo staff were first aid trained and only one night staff member had completed medicines training. The provider said this would be arranged.
“Nevertheless, no-one at the service was first aid trained and only one member of night staff had completed medication training.” from the report
Inconsistent care and choices
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, support during a meal did not always respect a person's wishes. People were also not always offered a real choice of drinks or biscuits.
“The dining experience for people on day one of the inspection was variable.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans used general information and did not explain clearly enough what staff should do to support individual needs or changing circumstances.
“Information recorded relating to specific healthcare needs was generic and not very person-centred.” from the report
Limited community activities
minorPeople could join activities inside the home, but inspectors found no opportunities for community-based activities despite the home's location near local facilities and open space.
“People confirmed they were able to participate in 'in-house' activities but did not have the opportunity to enjoy community-based activities” from the report
Leadership oversight
needs fixingGovernance had improved, but regular formal supervision was not in place for all staff, including the registered manager. The home had also not yet gathered regular views from people, relatives or staff.
“Arrangements were not in place for gathering people's, relatives or staffs views of the quality of service provided” from the report
- 01Have all staff, especially night staff, now completed first aid and medicines training?
- 02How are regular formal supervisions for staff and the manager being arranged and checked?
- 03How do you make sure care plans give clear, personalised instructions for each person's needs, preferences and changing health?
- 04What community activities are now available, and how are people supported to take part in them?
- 05Are menus, activity information and other important information now available in formats people with communication needs can understand?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the home's previous rating and covered all five CQC questions, including care, premises and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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 Wensley House Residential Home
7 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Wensley House Residential Home →
- October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Wensley House Residential Home →
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 December 2010.
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.