CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wey View
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- There were enough staff on each shift to keep people safe. Inspectors found safe medicines management, safeguarding arrangements, risk assessments and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Some people were not receiving the individual support hours commissioned for them. This reduced opportunities for meaningful activities, community access and a good quality of life.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider knew about concerns from relatives and staff but had not effectively monitored or acted on them. Management changes had also affected consistency and communication.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care, but people did not always receive the support and opportunities they were commissioned to have.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. One inspector visited on 30 September 2022 and completed inspection activity on 10 October 2022. The inspector spoke with staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care records, staffing information, medicines and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff on each shift to keep people safe. Medicines, safeguarding, risk management and infection control were also managed safely.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Some people did not receive their commissioned one-to-one or two-to-one support hours. This limited their access to activities and the local community, and affected their quality of life. The provider knew about these concerns but had not acted effectively enough.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 22 October 2020. This inspection only assessed Safe, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection.
Safe staffing
There were enough staff on each shift to keep people safe. Agency and bank staff were used when needed.
“There were enough staff on each shift to keep people safe. Agency and bank staff were employed when necessary to maintain safe staffing levels.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were managed safely at the inspection. Improvements had been made after earlier errors, and the records checked had no gaps or errors.
“There had been no further errors since the incidents and the medicines administration records we checked during our inspection contained no gaps or errors.” from the report
Communication support
Staff used different communication methods to help people express their needs and wishes. These included pictures, objects, signs and communication passports.
“Most people living at the home did not use speech to communicate. Staff used a number of alternative communication systems to support people to communicate their needs and wishes” from the report
Positive behaviour support
Individual plans explained possible triggers and how staff should respond when people communicated through emotional reactions.
“The PBS plans contained guidance for staff about potential triggers and what people were trying to convey through emotional reactions” from the report
Commissioned support not provided
seriousSome people were not receiving the dedicated support hours agreed for them. This meant they did not always have the personalised help needed for activities, community access and a good quality of life.
“The number of staff on duty was sufficient to keep people safe, but did not reflect the number of commissioned staffing hours each day.” from the report
Poor follow-through on known concerns
seriousThe provider knew that relatives and staff were worried about staffing and restricted opportunities, but did not take effective action to improve people's experience.
“The provider had not effectively monitored or taken action to improve the quality of the service, including the quality of the experience of people living at the home.” from the report
Limited activities and community access
needs fixingRelatives of some people said their family members were not getting meaningful activities or regular access to the community. One relative reported social isolation and a lack of exercise.
“One relative told us the lack of opportunities to engage with others had led to their family member becoming socially isolated.” from the report
Management changes
needs fixingSeveral management changes before the inspection affected consistency of leadership and communication with relatives. Communication had recently improved.
“There had been a number of management changes in the months prior to our inspection, which had affected the consistency of leadership and communication with relatives.” from the report
- 01How many dedicated one-to-one and two-to-one support hours will my relative receive each day?
- 02How will you make sure staff supporting my relative are not also supporting other people at the same time?
- 03What activities does my relative enjoy, and how often will they access the local community?
- 04What action have you taken since the inspection to address the concerns about commissioned support hours?
- 05How will you monitor and show that my relative is receiving a good quality of life and personalised care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 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, October 2020
Wey View rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with legal authorisations still awaiting approval.
Inspectors visited without an unannounced visit, giving 48 hours' notice because of coronavirus infection control arrangements. They spoke with a person living at the home, staff, managers and a relative. They checked care records, staff files, medicines, incidents, audits and infection control procedures.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found personalised care, safe medicines management, trained staff, suitable infection control measures and better monitoring by managers.
This was a focused inspection. It checked whether the home had acted on breaches found at the previous inspection in relation to consent, safe care and treatment, and governance. The home was no longer in breach of those regulations, and its overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Personalised risk support
The home used individual support guidelines to manage potentially risky behaviour. Staff recorded incidents and worked with a specialist team to identify triggers and effective responses.
“People received safe and consistent care that was personalised to their individual needs.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found additional measures during the pandemic, including PPE, more frequent cleaning and staff training on infection control.
“Additional infection control measures had been implemented to protect people and staff during the pandemic” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff were trained and assessed before giving medicines. Medicines records, supplies and administration were checked regularly.
“People's medicines were managed safely. There were appropriate arrangements for the ordering, storage and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Improved management oversight
The registered manager introduced regular observations, spot checks, audits and reviews. Care records were accurate and up to date.
“The monitoring and management oversight of the service had improved since our last inspection.” from the report
More consistent staffing
The report says staff turnover had fallen and people were supported by a more consistent team who knew their needs.
“This meant people were supported by consistent staff who knew them well and understood their needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the current position on the two outstanding DoLS applications, and what restrictions are currently in place?
- 02How are people's Positive Behaviour Support plans reviewed when incidents or communication needs change?
- 03How do you maintain staff consistency, and what has happened to staff turnover since the inspection?
- 04How often are care records, medicines and risk assessments audited, and how are families told about any changes?
- 05What infection control and visiting arrangements are currently in place?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led, including infection control; Caring and Responsive were not inspected at this visit, and previous ratings for uninspected questions were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 October 2020 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 View
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodEffective: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 November 2015.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.