CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wensum Way
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe and well supported. Medicines were stored securely and audited, although records did not initially show where a medicated patch had been applied.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and supported people safely with food and drink. Care plans about people’s needs, choices and mealtime preferences were of mixed quality and were being reviewed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed being kind, respectful and guided by people’s choices. Relatives were positive about the care, but regular meetings for people were not taking place and evidence of goal setting was limited.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Some care plans gave detailed personalised guidance, but others needed more review. Not all records included people’s gender preferences for personal care, and regular keyworker sessions were planned rather than established.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers had identified similar areas for improvement and were taking action. However, communication with families was mixed and changes to care planning and involvement had not become fully embedded.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but care planning, people’s involvement and management oversight were not always strong enough.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 8 December 2021. They spoke with people using the service, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records. They also checked infection prevention and control.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. Medicines were stored securely and audited well. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and supported their choices. The home was clean and COVID-19 guidance was being followed.
Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Care plans were being reviewed but some information was incomplete or out of date. Regular meetings with people were not taking place, goal setting was limited and communication with some families needed improvement. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in 2018.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff supported people in a caring way and respected their privacy, dignity and choices. Relatives told inspectors that staff understood and supported their loved ones.
“Staff were observed supporting people in a kind meaningful manner and engaged positively with them whilst providing support.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Medicines were locked away, recorded on administration records and checked daily. Staff knew when and how to give medicines prescribed for use when needed.
“Medicine administrations were recorded on medicine administration records (MAR). Counts were completed daily following administrations to ensure a clear running balance was maintained.” from the report
Support for health and community life
The service involved healthcare professionals when needed and supported people to attend activities such as day services, shops and restaurants. The home also had adaptations and a vehicle with a tail lift.
“People were supported with a variety of activities. Including accessing the community to attend day services, shopping and restaurants.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
needs fixingCare plans were being updated, but some did not contain enough detail or clear review dates. This included information about preferences and end of life support.
“Care plans were currently undergoing a review, causing some of the information recorded to not be of the standard we would expect.” from the report
People were not always involved
needs fixingRegular meetings with people were not taking place. Inspectors also found limited evidence of effective goals and aspirations being recorded.
“Regular meetings with people supported were not taking place at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Communication with families needed improvement
minorSome families had regular communication with the service, while others felt this needed to improve. Management oversight and changes to the service were not yet fully consistent.
“Feedback from families was mixed in relation to communication. Some families had maintained regular communication with the service where others felt this was an area that required development.” from the report
Missing personal care preferences
needs fixingNot all care records included people’s gender preferences for personal care. Inspectors said this created a risk that people might not be supported by staff of their choice.
“Not all care documents reviewed listed people's gender preferences when being supported with personal care.” from the report
- 01Which parts of the person’s care plan have been updated since the inspection, and how often are they now reviewed?
- 02How will the person be involved in regular meetings, keyworker sessions and setting goals about their support?
- 03How will you make sure personal care records include the person’s gender preferences and other important choices?
- 04What changes have been made to communication with relatives who previously found it inconsistent?
- 05How do you check that the improvements identified by managers are now fully embedded in staff practice?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the care home and personal care support in two supported living settings; CQC did not regulate the premises used for supported living. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 January 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.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some areas of the home needing redecoration.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 May 2018. One inspector spoke with people and staff, observed care, checked care and medicines records, and reviewed staff recruitment, training, health and safety records and quality checks.
The home supported seven people with a learning disability. Nine other people received support in three supported living settings. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, detailed risk assessments and care plans that reflected people's needs.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were supported to make choices, stay independent, see health professionals, maintain relationships and take part in activities they enjoyed.
All five areas were rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection on 9 July 2015. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns, although some areas of one location needed redecoration because of wear and tear.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were given on time by staff who were considered competent, with daily checks of stocks and records.
“People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who were competent to provide this.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff respected privacy, dignity and people's choices about how and when they received support.
“Staff understood their role in providing people with compassionate care and support, which included promoting people's dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans described people's preferences and abilities. Daily records showed that staff responded when people accepted, declined or changed activities and support.
“The person-centred support plans included details of people's likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Strong management and teamwork
The provider and manager monitored the service through regular audits and visits. Staff described good teamwork and morale, with senior cover available when the manager was absent.
“The registered manager and staff team had systems in place to provide consistent care and work collaboratively with other agencies.” from the report
Some areas needed redecoration
minorInspectors found wear and tear in some areas of one location. The manager was working with the landlord and hoped improvements would be made during 2018.
“We saw that in this location, some areas of the home were in need of redecoration due to wear and tear.” from the report
- 01Which areas needed redecoration, and has this work now been completed?
- 02How would you support my relative to make choices about their care and daily routine?
- 03How are medicines checked and what happens if a dose is missed or refused?
- 04How would you assess and update my relative's support plan after they moved in?
- 05What activities and opportunities for independence would be available for my relative?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the care home and supported living support, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 June 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 Wensum Way
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.