CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wheatsheaf Court Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, recruitment checks were completed and the home was clean.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People did not always receive personalised support at mealtimes. Inspectors saw people left while being helped to eat, unsuitable equipment missing and support given at a pace that did not allow safe swallowing.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The systems used to monitor and improve care were not effective enough. They had not identified or resolved continuing poor support at mealtimes, including missing equipment and cold meals.
What inspectors found, April 2024
Wheatsheaf Court Care Home is Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care but continuing problems with mealtimes and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 and 23 November 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, quality checks and staff recruitment files.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate medicine arrangements and systems to protect people from harm. The home was clean, and staff responded to accidents and incidents.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. People did not always receive the individual support they needed at mealtimes. Inspectors found that checks and management systems had not fixed these problems. The home remains in breach of regulations 9 and 17.
Safety and medicines
Inspectors found that people received medicines as prescribed and that risks had been assessed. Staff had safeguarding and medicines training.
“The system for managing medicines ensured people were given the right dose at the right time.” from the report
Staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs during the inspection. The provider also completed recruitment checks, including references and DBS checks.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Health support
People were supported to see health professionals when needed. Staff recorded health concerns and the action taken.
“People were supported by staff to access healthcare services when required.” from the report
Choice and consent
Staff asked for permission before providing day-to-day care and supported people to make their own decisions. The provider was working in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
“Throughout the inspection, we heard staff ask people for their permission when offering care and support” from the report
Mealtime support
seriousPeople did not always receive individual support that met their social and nutritional needs. Inspectors saw people left during meals, missing adaptive equipment and food being given too quickly.
“During an observation of the mealtime service we saw the lunch service was chaotic, people did not receive individualised support and their dignity was not protected.” from the report
Poor oversight
seriousManagement checks did not identify or correct continuing problems with mealtime care. Some people did not have the equipment they needed, and some meals were cold.
“The oversight and governance of the service was not effectively managed.” from the report
Staff practice and induction
needs fixingAlthough staff had received training, inspectors did not always see this reflected in practice. New and agency staff were sometimes shadowing workers who were not following good practice.
“New staff start off on the wrong foot because they are not shadowing staff who deliver care how it should be.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have been made to support each person safely and with dignity at mealtimes?
- 02How do you make sure plate guards, adaptive cutlery and other required equipment are available before meals?
- 03How do managers check that people are not left while being helped to eat?
- 04How are new and agency staff supervised so they learn good person-centred practice?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan requested by the CQC?
This inspection checked whether previous legal requirements were being met and rated Safe, Effective and Well-led; ratings for Caring and Responsive were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 April 2024 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, May 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found serious risks in diabetes care, medicines, infection control, mealtimes and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection over three days. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was not always safe or effective. Inspectors found unsafe management of insulin-dependent diabetes, medicines, falls, food temperatures and infection risks. Care plans did not always reflect people's current needs. Mealtime support was not always timely or personal.
There were enough staff according to people and relatives, and staff understood safeguarding procedures. However, training, supervision and management checks were not reliable enough to identify and fix repeated problems.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. The inspection found continued breaches of Regulations 9, 12 and 17, and warning notices were issued.
Staffing levels
People and relatives said there were enough staff to meet people's needs and that they did not have to wait for care.
“People told us they thought enough staff were deployed to meet their needs.” from the report
Listening to feedback
The manager held meetings with people and staff, and records showed that some actions were taken in response to feedback.
“Regular meetings had been held, for people to share their views and contribute to the running of the service.” from the report
Diabetes care
seriousCare plans did not reflect the current needs of people with insulin-dependent diabetes. Blood glucose was not always monitored effectively, and two people had prolonged periods of high blood glucose.
“People living with insulin dependent diabetes did not have care plans that reflected their current needs or inform staff how to mitigate known risks associated with the person's diabetes.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousMedicines were not always managed safely. The home had not ensured that appropriate professionals were consulted before some medicines were given covertly in food or drink.
“Failure to assess the risks related to the crushing of medicines and mixing with food placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Infection control
seriousCOVID-19 guidance was not consistently followed, some areas and equipment were visibly dirty, and there was a risk of cross-contamination.
“Some areas of the home and equipment were visibly dirty. This posed a risk of cross contamination.” from the report
Mealtime support
needs fixingLunch was described as chaotic. Some people waited for food or were left part way through receiving help with their meal.
“People were not provided with the individual support they needed at mealtimes.” from the report
Care records and checks
needs fixingCare plans and risk assessments contained incomplete or out-of-date information. Audits and other management checks were not always completed as planned.
“People's care plans and risk assessments contained incomplete information about people's risks and requirements in relation to behaviour, wound care and nutrition and hydration needs.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
seriousThe home closed to visitors for one week during a COVID-19 outbreak, which did not follow government visiting guidance.
“The provider had not followed government COVID-19 guidance on care home visiting during an outbreak as the home had been closed to visitors for one week.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to diabetes care plans and blood glucose monitoring since the inspection?
- 02How are medicines given covertly now, and which health professionals check that this is safe?
- 03How do you check that care plans and risk assessments are current and complete?
- 04What has changed in mealtime staffing and support so people are not left waiting or left part way through a meal?
- 05How are infection control checks, cleaning and outbreak visiting arrangements monitored now?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and the overall rating used the previous ratings for the questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 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.
Every inspection of Wheatsheaf Court Care Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2023Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of West Northamptonshire
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 £1,280 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.