CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wey House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Wey House Nursing Home is rated Good overall, but inspectors found management and records need improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 5 and 6 July 2023. Inspectors looked at whether care was safe, effective and well-led. They spoke with people living at the home, visitors, staff and provider representatives, and checked care plans, medicines and other records.
The home was rated Good for safe and effective care. Risk assessments had improved since the previous inspection, people said they felt safe, and staff supported people with medicines, food, healthcare and daily choices. Infection prevention arrangements were also found to be suitable.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for well-led. Management changes, limited clinical oversight, incomplete or conflicting care information and weaknesses in quality checks had caused concern. The provider had started action to improve training, care plans, the environment and management support, but inspectors said it was too early to know whether improvements would last.
The overall rating stayed Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this focused visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Improved risk management
Risk assessments had improved since the previous inspection. Staff followed them and recorded actions to reduce risks.
“People received their care and support safely because staff completed risk assessments and there was information about how risks would be minimised.” from the report
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
“People told us they felt safe at the home.” from the report
Healthcare support
Nurses and senior staff monitored people's health and helped them access the professionals and appointments they needed.
“People had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs.” from the report
Positive staff culture
Staff morale had improved and staff were described as positive about changes. People were supported to make everyday choices.
“Staff morale was good which created a happy environment for people to live in.” from the report
Care records were not always clear
needs fixingCare plans could be bulky, contradictory or difficult to search. Important information about people's health needs was not always easy for staff to find.
“Care plans were bulky, and some information was contradictory.” from the report
Training was incomplete
needs fixingSome staff had not received adequate induction or support for their roles. The provider had started additional training and competency checks.
“People were cared for by staff who had not always received adequate training.” from the report
Management and quality checks
needs fixingManagement changes and a lack of clinical leadership had affected oversight. Quality systems had not always identified shortfalls, and new improvements had not been in place long enough to prove they would last.
“The provider's quality assurance and monitoring systems had not always been effective in identifying shortfalls.” from the report
Staffing consistency
minorThere had been difficulties recruiting staff and a high reliance on agency workers. People gave mixed views about staffing and one person reported waiting for the call bell to be answered.
“There had been issues with recruiting new staff and there was a high reliance on agency staff.” from the report
Some areas needed updating
minorSome parts of the older building looked tired and needed redecoration. The provider said a five-year programme was planned.
“Some areas of the home looked tired and would benefit from re decoration.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure every care plan is up to date, consistent and easy for agency staff to find?
- 02What training and competency checks have all new and existing staff now completed?
- 03What difference has the new clinical lead made to clinical oversight and people's care?
- 04How are you reducing reliance on agency staff and making sure staffing is sufficient on every shift?
- 05What improvements have been made to the building and how is the redecoration plan being delivered?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 2023 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, January 2022
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found improvements were needed in safety, staffing cover and risk assessments.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 6 December 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because of concerns about staffing. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and relatives were satisfied with the care. Medicines, infection control, recruitment and nursing cover were found to be safe. Staffing levels did not fall below the home's assessed safe level, but shortages reduced activities, trips out and some contact with relatives.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Some risk assessments did not clearly state the level of risk or explain why action had been taken. Well-led was rated Good, although there was no registered manager at the time. The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection, but the Safe rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. Relatives said their family members were safe and well cared for.
“People felt safe at the home and appeared relaxed and comfortable with the staff who cared for them.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Trained staff administered medicines safely. Records showed medicines were given regularly and as prescribed, with no recording gaps found.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) indicated people received their medicines regularly and as prescribed.” from the report
Good infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was following infection prevention measures, including the use of protective equipment and arrangements for visits.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Positive management systems
The provider had quality audits, an action plan and emergency arrangements. Staff said communication was good and relatives were involved in care discussions.
“The provider had systems to monitor the quality of care and plan improvements.” from the report
Kind and knowledgeable staff
Staff knew people well and provided physical support in a person-centred way. People and relatives praised staff for their care, including during the pandemic.
“Staff demonstrated an excellent knowledge of the people they cared for and provided physical support to people in a person-centred way.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not clearly conclude how serious a risk was or why particular actions had been taken. Inspectors recommended that these assessments be reviewed.
“Some risk assessments we viewed did not reach a conclusion about the level of risk identified.” from the report
Staff shortages affected activities
needs fixingThe home maintained its assessed safe staffing level, but shortages meant activity staff sometimes worked care shifts. This reduced social stimulation and some opportunities to go out or visit relatives.
“This meant there were times when there were no dedicated staff to support people with social activities.” from the report
Limited interaction at times
minorInspectors saw one person spending the morning with little staff interaction or occupation, despite their care plan saying they should always be kept busy.
“We saw this person spent the morning sat in the lounge with minimal staff interaction or occupation.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when the inspection took place. A new manager had been appointed but had not yet started.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01Have all individual risk assessments now been reviewed so that each one clearly states the level of risk and the action needed?
- 02Are staffing levels still affecting activities, trips out or visits with relatives?
- 03Has the new manager started, and is the manager now registered with the CQC?
- 04How do you check that people receive enough social interaction when activity staff are working care shifts?
- 05How do you now monitor individual weight records and care needs at provider level?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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.
Every inspection of Wey House Nursing Home
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2022GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 February 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
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.