CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Weston Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines, recruitment and risk management had improved. People told inspectors they felt safe, and infection prevention arrangements were judged satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's nutritional monitoring had improved, and staff had better records of food, fluids and weight loss. Staff were trained, people could access healthcare, and consent was sought.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and supportive. People were involved in decisions about their care, and their privacy and independence were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were more detailed and up to date, and staff understood people's needs and preferences. The home had activities, accessible information and a complaints system that people said worked better.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found stronger checks on care quality, clearer actions when problems were found and better communication with people and relatives. The manager was described as approachable and committed to improvement.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Weston Park Care Home is rated Good and no longer in special measures; inspectors found improved care, management and safety, although food and staffing were not perfect.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 25 and 26 May 2022. They spoke with people living in the home and relatives, reviewed care and medicines records, checked recruitment files and looked at how the home was managed.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, supported and listened to. Inspectors found improvements in medicines, recruitment, nutrition, care planning and management oversight.
The previous inspection had rated the home Inadequate and found breaches of regulations. The home had been in special measures, but inspectors found enough improvement for it to be rated Good and removed from special measures.
Safer medicines
Medicines were being managed safely, with fewer errors and checks on staff training and competence.
“An external medication inspection held since our last inspection concluded that improvements had been made, with the service responding robustly to address any actions.” from the report
Better nutrition monitoring
Records for people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration were more consistent. Inspectors found that action after weight loss had improved.
“At this visit, recording was more consistent and provided staff with an accurate indication of further action needed to keep people well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them with respect and met their care needs. Inspectors observed that privacy and dignity were promoted.
“The staff are very nice and look after me. Very caring and look after all my needs.” from the report
Stronger management checks
The home had more effective systems for checking quality and acting on problems.
“Clear actions to address any issues raised by these audits were in place.” from the report
Food was not right for everyone
minorPeople acknowledged improvements, but inspectors recorded mixed views about the food. Staff were speaking with people who were unhappy with the meal choices.
“There were mixed comments on the food provided although people acknowledged that improvements had been made.” from the report
Staff could be rushed
minorMost people felt staffing was adequate, but one comment said staff could seem rushed on some days. The home also reported difficulties recruiting new staff.
“Staffing is adequate but sometimes they [staff] can be rushing some days” from the report
- 01How are you checking that the improvements in medicines management continue, and how often are staff medicines competencies reviewed?
- 02How do you monitor people who are losing weight or are at risk of malnutrition or dehydration?
- 03How many permanent and agency staff are usually on each unit, and what happens when staff are under pressure or recruitment is difficult?
- 04How are residents' food preferences recorded and acted on when they are unhappy with the meal choices?
- 05What regular checks now show that the improvements found at this inspection are being sustained?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the previous Inadequate rating, with particular attention to Safe and infection prevention and control; inspectors also assessed the other key questions and rated all five Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 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, February 2022
Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found serious problems with medicines, risk management, staffing checks and oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection carried out over several dates in October and November 2021. Inspectors spoke with people using the service, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was not safe. Some people did not receive medicines as prescribed. Risks linked to food, drink, weight loss, falls and access to care information were not always managed properly. Recruitment checks were also incomplete.
The home was rated Inadequate overall. Safe and well-led were Inadequate, while effective was Requires Improvement. Caring and responsive were not inspected during this visit, so earlier ratings for those areas were used in the overall rating.
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured about several infection control arrangements, including shielding, social distancing, safe admissions and the condition of the infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Mental capacity decisions
Inspectors found that decisions made for people who lacked capacity followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
“Where decisions were made on people's behalf the principals of the MCA were followed.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
The home had systems for reporting and investigating safeguarding incidents, and staff had received relevant training.
“Systems were in place to report and investigate these incidents and staff had received relevant training.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome people missed medicines or did not receive them as prescribed. Medicine stocks and records were inaccurate, and thickeners were sometimes given to people they were not prescribed for or stored insecurely.
“Systems were not in place or robust enough to demonstrate the safe use of medicines.” from the report
Risks were not managed reliably
seriousFood and fluid records had significant gaps, action after weight loss was delayed and there was not always evidence of action to reduce repeated falls. Some staff did not have reliable access to people's risk information.
“The provider failed to adequately assess risk and had not done all that was reasonable to mitigate any such risk.” from the report
Recruitment checks were incomplete
seriousRequired references were not always obtained and gaps in employment were not always explored before staff were employed.
“Recruitment systems were not sufficiently robust.” from the report
Weak oversight and repeated problems
seriousQuality systems did not reliably identify, address or sustain improvements. Problems from earlier inspections, including medicines and record keeping, remained or had returned.
“Areas of concern identified during previous inspections, such as gaps in recording, safe management of medicines and governance systems remained or had reoccurred.” from the report
Staffing and training pressures
needs fixingAlthough enough staff were on duty during the inspection, staff appeared very busy, there was little interaction with people and the home relied heavily on agency workers. Not all staff had completed required training.
“Although we observed there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs during the inspection, we found that staff were extremely busy and we observed little other interaction between people and care staff.” from the report
Food and communication concerns
needs fixingSome people spoke negatively about the food, and communication with relatives and external professionals was not always prompt or effective. Visiting guidance had also not initially been followed.
“Some people spoke negatively about the food served.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure every person receives medicines exactly as prescribed, including prescribed thickeners?
- 02How are you checking food and fluid records, weight loss and falls, and what action is taken when risks increase?
- 03Have all new staff now had references, employment gaps and other required pre-employment checks completed?
- 04How many permanent staff are now working in the home, and how are you reducing reliance on agency staff?
- 05What evidence can you show that the action plan has fixed the repeated problems with medicines, records and governance?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous comprehensive inspection ratings were carried into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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.
Every inspection of Weston Park Care Home
8 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 September 2016.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire East
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.