CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wessex House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks had been assessed and that measures were in place to reduce harm. They found safe staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and equipment arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the last comprehensive inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the last comprehensive inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the last comprehensive inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality checks, regular oversight from managers and an open and inclusive culture. Staff, people living at the home and relatives gave positive feedback about management and support.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found that safety controls and management had improved since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 May 2022. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked records about safety, medicines, recruitment and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines systems and procedures for managing risks. Infection prevention and visiting arrangements were also considered satisfactory.
The inspection followed a Requires Improvement rating in 2019. Inspectors found that earlier problems with pressure mattresses, thickening agents, blood-thinning medicines and hoist slings had been addressed. The overall rating changed to Good, although this visit did not reassess Caring, Responsive or Effective.
Improved safety controls
The home had improved its systems for pressure mattresses, thickening agents, blood-thinning medicines after falls and hoist slings. Inspectors said these changes reduced the risk of harm.
“These measures which had been put into place helped to reduce the risk of pressure ulcers developing.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care. The home used recruitment, extra shifts and agency staff to cover staffing needs.
“The home employed sufficient staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were recorded electronically, staff were trained and checks were carried out. Inspectors found that people received their medicines as prescribed.
“The records we checked showed that medicines were administered correctly and recorded the total of each medicine in stock.” from the report
Stronger oversight
The home had introduced quality and management checks after the previous inspection. Inspectors found that audits were being used to monitor care and identify shortfalls.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the home and the care provided to people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now check that each person's pressure mattress remains at the correct setting?
- 02What happens if someone taking blood-thinning medicine falls or is injured?
- 03How do you make sure thickening agents remain locked away and are only accessed by authorised staff?
- 04How are agency staff introduced to the home and to the people they support?
- 05Can we see how your recent quality audits have identified and addressed any shortfalls?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the last comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 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, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks and quality systems had missed risks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, staffing information and management records.
People generally said they were happy and felt safe. Staff were caring, well trained and knew people's needs. Care was personalised, people were supported to make choices, and activities and healthcare support were available.
Inspectors found important safety risks. Half of the 22 pressure-relieving mattresses checked were set incorrectly. Thickening powder was not stored securely, and written guidance for people taking blood-thinning medicines after a fall was missing. Staffing views were mixed, and mealtimes were less supportive on one floor.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 13 February 2017. The manager took immediate action and sent evidence within 48 hours that several problems had been addressed, but CQC asked for an action plan and planned to monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed treating people kindly and respecting their privacy, dignity and personal wishes.
“People received care from staff who were kind and caring. Staff always respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff had relevant training and showed good knowledge of people's individual needs, preferences and health conditions.
“All staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people's individual needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
Volunteers helped provide varied activities, including coffee mornings, crafts, music and opportunities involving animals.
“People were supported by many volunteers to help run activities and increase social opportunities for them.” from the report
Quick response to problems
The manager acted promptly during and after the inspection and provided evidence that several identified problems had been addressed.
“Within 48 hours of the inspection the registered manager sent us evidence to show they had obtained manufacturer's information and put in place checks” from the report
Pressure mattress checks
seriousInspectors found that 11 of 22 pressure-relieving mattresses were set at the wrong pressure for people's weight. This created a potential risk of pressure ulcers.
“People were at risk of developing pressure ulcers, of the 22 pressure relieving mattresses we looked at 50% were set at the wrong pressure for the weight of the person.” from the report
Unsafe thickening powder storage
seriousThickening powder was found in unlocked wardrobes and left unattended in a bedroom. Inspectors said this created a choking risk.
“People and visitors were placed at risk of choking because a special powder used to thicken drinks was not stored securely.” from the report
Missing fall guidance
seriousPeople taking blood-thinning medicines did not have clear written instructions for staff to follow after a head injury or fall.
“People on blood thinning medicines did not have clear protocols in place to direct staff on how to act if the person experienced a head injury.” from the report
Staffing and mealtime support
needs fixingPeople, relatives and staff gave mixed views about staffing. On the upper floor, people did not always receive enough social or direct support during meals, and an activity took nearly 20 minutes to start because someone was waiting for a transfer.
“However, people and relatives had mixed opinions about whether there were enough staff.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans lacked important details or contained contradictions. One person's plan did not clearly describe checks needed for their feeding tube, which could affect staff who did not know the person.
“The level of guidance included in care plans was mixed and sometimes contained contradictions or lacked details.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits and quality systems did not identify all the problems found by inspectors. CQC recommended that the provider review the quality assurance system.
“However, they had failed to identify some of the shortfalls highlighted during the inspection.” from the report
- 01How often are pressure-relieving mattresses now checked, and how is the correct setting recorded for each person?
- 02Where are thickening agents stored now, and who checks that they are put away safely after use?
- 03What written procedure do staff follow when someone taking blood-thinning medicine has a fall or head injury?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff to support transfers, activities and eating and drinking on every floor?
- 05Have each person's end-of-life wishes and any specialist care needs, such as feeding-tube checks, been recorded clearly in their care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions; Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement and the other three questions were rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 September 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 Wessex House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 June 2014.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.