CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wheatley Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures, risks were assessed and reviewed, recruitment checks were completed, and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had access to relevant health professionals and staff had suitable training, supervision and appraisals. People were involved in meal planning, shopping and food preparation, and consent was sought before support was provided.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well, treated them with dignity and respect, and supported their choices and independence. People were involved in care reviews and day-to-day decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were detailed, person-centred and kept up to date. People had accessible information, a choice of activities and opportunities to use the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider used regular audits and checks to monitor the service. Staff and people said the manager was available, and inspectors observed a welcoming and inclusive culture.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Wheatley Lane is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection took place on 25 March 2019 and was announced 48 hours beforehand. One inspector spoke with all four people living in the home, staff, the manager and a community health professional. They observed daily life, checked the building, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were positive about staff. Inspectors found personalised care, suitable staffing, safe medicines support, staff training, access to health professionals and activities that matched people's interests.
The report says the home had improved since its previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. Earlier concerns about safeguarding, risk assessments, health action plans, equality and diversity, care records, accessible information and quality audits had been addressed. The report says the service met the characteristics of Good in all key questions.
Kind relationships
People spoke positively about staff, who had built positive relationships and treated people as individuals.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Clear care records
Care plans had improved and gave staff detailed, current information about the support each person needed.
“People's care records had been updated. They were detailed, person-centred and accurately described what support people needed from staff.” from the report
Choice and activities
People helped plan meals and had activities linked to their interests, including classes, training and visits to a day centre.
“People had a variety of leisure opportunities relating to their preferences and interests.” from the report
Improved management
The home had regular checks covering areas such as care plans, medicines, incidents and infection control. Inspectors found that action was taken when improvements were identified.
“The quality assurance system included monthly audits of care plans, accident and incident analysis, medicine management and infection control carried out by the registered manager.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure the detailed care plans stay accurate when a person's needs change?
- 02How do you cover unexpected staffing gaps, and how do you make sure replacement staff know the people living here?
- 03How are people supported to manage or self-administer medicines, and how are as-needed medicines checked?
- 04How do you keep accessible information available for people who need pictures, large print or symbols?
- 05What do your audits look for, and how do you make sure any safeguarding concerns or other incidents are acted on?
This was a planned, announced inspection covering all five key questions; inspectors spoke with all four people living there but reviewed two people's care records, two medicines records and two staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Wheatley Lane was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but safeguarding, care records and management checks were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited on 18 and 22 January 2018. They met the four people using the home, observed care, spoke with staff and managers, checked two care records and staff files, reviewed medicines and training records, and looked around the building.
The home was rated Requires Improvement in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, liked the staff and had choices about food and activities. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, the building and infection control were generally managed safely.
However, staff did not always recognise or report safeguarding concerns. Risk assessments, health plans and care records were inconsistent. Some conditions linked to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had not been fully met. Quality checks had failed to identify several of these problems.
The home had been rated Good at its previous inspection in April 2015. At this inspection, CQC found two breaches of regulations and made recommendations about consent and person-centred care.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw caring and supportive interactions. People said they were fond of staff and trusted them to help.
“All of our observations during our inspection were of a caring and supportive approach from staff.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
The home had safe arrangements for ordering, storing, giving and recording medicines. People who managed their own medicines were identified in the records.
“Safe systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in activities at home and in the community, including clubs, shopping, lunch and educational or employment opportunities.
“People had access to a variety of activities and were supported to engage in these on a daily basis.” from the report
Appropriate staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found staffing levels were suitable for people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed and people living at the home were involved in recruitment.
“Staff recruitment followed safe procedures ensuring all checks, were completed before people started work.” from the report
Safeguarding was not reliable
seriousStaff were not clear about what could be abuse, and some potential safeguarding concerns had not been referred. Risk assessments and care plans were also missing for some incidents.
“Staff did not have a clear understanding of what might constitute abuse and potential safeguarding issues had not been reported appropriately.” from the report
Care records were inconsistent
needs fixingSome care plans were detailed, but others did not show current needs, goals, aspirations or people's involvement. This meant important needs could be missed.
“Although our observations were of staff supporting people with a person centred approach this was not supported by documentation, which meant people's needs could be overlooked.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousAudits did not identify several issues found by inspectors, including outdated records, missed safeguarding referrals and failure to meet a DoLS condition.
“Systems to audit the quality of service were in place but we found these were not always effective in identifying issues and therefore driving improvement.” from the report
A DoLS condition was not fully met
needs fixingOne authorisation had a condition about care plans, family contact and recording best-interest decisions. This condition had mostly been met, but not fully.
“Conditions applied to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations had not been fully complied with.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure every safeguarding concern is recognised, recorded and referred promptly?
- 02How will you make sure risk assessments and care plans reflect each person's current needs, goals and choices?
- 03How will you check that all conditions attached to a person's DoLS authorisation are being met and recorded?
- 04What changes have been made to the audit system so it identifies problems before they affect people's wellbeing?
- 05How is staff training delivered now, and how do you check that staff understand and can use what they have learned?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the building and care provided; the previous rating was Good in April 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2018 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 Wheatley Lane
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2010.
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 Calderdale
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. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.