CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wheathills House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood their risks and care plans. Inspectors found safe medicines management, suitable infection control arrangements and enough staff to meet people's needs at the time of the inspection.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's preferences. People were involved in choices about their care, meals, activities and daily routines.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- New care planning and quality systems had been introduced, and the previous governance breach had been resolved. However, recruitment records and the detail in some audits still needed improvement.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Wheathills House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, caring support but inconsistent management and governance.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 22 June 2021. Two inspectors spoke with seven people, staff, relatives and health professionals. They reviewed five care records, recruitment records, infection control arrangements and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Caring. People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines practice, enough staff at the time of inspection, and respectful, personalised care.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. New quality systems and care planning had been introduced, and the home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17. However, recruitment checks were not always completed promptly, and some audits needed to be more specific. Effective and Responsive were not assessed in this inspection.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and staff knew how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Risks such as choking and pressure damage were recorded and managed.
“People felt safe and were protected from avoidable harm and abuse.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff responsible for medicines had training and understood their responsibilities.
“We observed safe practices in the administration, storage and recording of medicines and checks were completed to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and personalised care
Staff knew people's routines, likes and dislikes. People were treated with dignity and supported to make everyday choices.
“Staff interacted with people in a warm and caring manner, listening to what they had to say and taking action.” from the report
Staffing met needs
Inspectors saw enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and support social activities. People did not have to wait for help during the inspection.
“We saw there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs and to enable people to enjoy social activities.” from the report
Improvement after the previous inspection
The provider had introduced new care planning and quality systems. The previous breach of Regulation 17 had been resolved.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 17” from the report
Recruitment checks were not always timely
needs fixingThe home had recruitment procedures, but risk assessments and other required records were not always completed promptly before people started work.
“the timeliness of carrying out risk assessments and ensuring all necessary records were obtained required improvements” from the report
Audits needed more detail
needs fixingQuality audits were being completed but did not always identify specific information. Inspectors gave examples involving infection control products and reviews of medicines given when needed.
“However, these could be reviewed further to ensure these identified specific information.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure all recruitment risk assessments and required records are completed before a new staff member starts work?
- 02What changes have you made to quality audits so they identify the correct infection control products for different tasks?
- 03How do you check that medicines given when needed are reviewed when they have been administered regularly?
- 04What evidence can you show that the new electronic care planning and audit systems are improving oversight?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective and Responsive, which were not assessed in this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 July 2021 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were keeping people safe.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 9 November 2020. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was following shielding and social distancing rules, using PPE safely, arranging testing and managing cleaning and hygiene. People were being supported in their bedrooms and kept in contact with relatives by telephone and internet services.
The new manager had reviewed staffing, cleaning arrangements and infection control procedures. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Infection control checks
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements for shielding, social distancing, PPE, testing, cleaning and managing infection outbreaks.
“We were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.” from the report
Staff support
The new manager completed supervision for all staff during the first week. Staff told inspectors they felt supported.
“The new manager had completed supervision for all staff during their first week in the service, to provide staff with assurances and guidance.” from the report
Testing arrangements
Staff were tested weekly and people living in the home were tested monthly, with their consent.
“Testing was completed in the home weekly for staff and monthly for people using the service.” from the report
Support for relatives to stay in touch
Although relatives and friends were not visiting at the time, people were supported to keep in contact by telephone and internet services.
“People was supported to stay in contact with relatives by the telephone and through Internet services.” from the report
Further cleaning advice was needed
minorThe home received further advice about using the correct strength of chlorine and accessing the staff room. The report does not say this led to a breach.
“Further advice was provided from the community lead for Infection Prevention and Control with cleaning, to ensure the correct strength chlorine was used and accessing the staff room.” from the report
- 01How have infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection in November 2020?
- 02What are the current visiting arrangements, and how would relatives be supported if visiting restrictions were needed again?
- 03How often are people and staff tested now, and how are test results acted on?
- 04How is staffing arranged when people need to stay in their bedrooms or self-isolate?
- 05What checks are now in place to make sure cleaning products are used at the correct strength?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 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 Wheathills House
7 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- July 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.