CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Whincup Care Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing arrangements, premises checks and medicines systems were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's outcomes were consistently good and staff had appropriate training and support. Some mental capacity records did not fully follow the relevant code of practice, but the manager took immediate action.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives said staff listened to them and respected their choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised around people's needs, interests and routines. People were supported with communication, hobbies, family contact and activities in the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had strong leadership, motivated staff and quality checks that were used to improve care. The home had also corrected the earlier failure to notify the CQC about important events.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found improved, kind and person-centred care, with some records still needing attention.
Inspectors visited on 27 and 28 February 2019. The visit was unannounced on the first day. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines records and management documents.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement. Medicines systems were better, safety incidents were reported, and care records reflected people's needs, choices and goals. People were supported to build skills, be more independent and take part in community activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found legal requirements were met and that people received consistently good care. There were still some issues to improve, including mental capacity records and training in data protection.
Improved medicines safety
Medicines records and procedures had improved. Staff recorded when medicines were given, and medicines were stored safely.
“There were improved systems for the management of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm interactions. People and relatives described staff as kind, understanding and respectful.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect. We observed warm, friendly interactions and people appeared happy and relaxed in the company of staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, develop practical skills and become more independent. Their care plans included their goals and preferences.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Strong leadership
The manager and care director had close knowledge of people's needs. Staff said they felt valued and motivated.
“The service provided strong leadership to a motivated staff team who felt valued by management.” from the report
Personalised activities
People followed individual routines and took part in activities such as college, voluntary work, shopping, the gym and hobbies at home.
“People were supported to follow their own personalised routines, activities and ways of living in accordance with their wishes and ambitions.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments did not include every part of the required test. The manager started correcting this during the inspection.
“However, mental capacity assessments did not always fully conform with the mental capacity code of practice.” from the report
Data protection training
minorOnly two staff had completed data protection training. Inspectors recommended that all staff receive this training.
“We recommend the service ensures all staff are trained in this to raise awareness of their responsibilities regarding how to be compliant with The General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) 2018.” from the report
Safeguarding policy
needs fixingThe home's safeguarding policy did not mention every possible type of abuse under the Care Act. The manager said it would be reviewed promptly.
“However, it did not reference all types of possible abuse under The Care Act 2014.” from the report
Food hygiene rating
minorThe home had a food hygiene rating of 3, described in the report as generally satisfactory. Environmental health recommendations had been acted on.
“The service received a food hygiene rating of 3. This means that the business was found to be generally satisfactory.” from the report
- 01Have all mental capacity assessments been updated so they include every part of the required test?
- 02Have all staff now completed data protection training?
- 03What is the current position on the outstanding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications?
- 04What changes were made to the safeguarding policy to cover all types of possible abuse?
- 05How will you discuss and record end of life wishes in a way that is suitable for each person?
This was a planned inspection of the overall quality and safety of the care home, including the premises and care provided, and all five key questions were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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, February 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines, consent, incident reporting and management systems needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 and 10 January 2018. It was the home’s first inspection after registration. The home supported three people and could accommodate up to six.
Inspectors found people were treated kindly, their dignity was respected, and care was personalised. People were supported with food, health needs, community activities and relationships. Staff were described as supportive and caring.
There were important safety and management problems. Medicines were not always handled safely, some incidents were not reported or investigated properly, and records did not show consent and best-interest decisions. The home did not have a registered manager and effective quality checks were not in place.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treat people with kindness, listen to them and support their dignity. Staff took time to understand people's communication and routines.
“We observed staff treated people with kindness in their daily routine.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, interests, cultural needs and religious needs. Staff supported people to make choices and take part in community activities.
“Care plans were detailed and captured people's daily routines.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to choose food, manage daily routines and develop skills. The home supported people to attend college, work-related activities and community opportunities.
“People could be as independent as they wanted to be in a supportive environment where people could develop the skills necessary for them to achieve their full potential.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks had been completed, including identity, references, employment history and DBS checks.
“The service ensured there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome medicines were crushed without authorisation from a GP or pharmacist. Records had missing signatures and incorrect codes, and there was no protocol for medicines given when needed.
“Medicines were not managed in line with current guidance and best practice.” from the report
Consent records were missing
seriousThe home did not record consent and best-interest decisions for people who might lack capacity. Inspectors also found that a required authorisation had not been applied for when one person's freedom to leave was restricted.
“The service did not follow the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.” from the report
Incidents were not properly reported
seriousA significant medicines-related incident had not been properly investigated or reported to CQC. The report also said the duty of candour had not been used for that incident.
“We found safety incidents were not reported internally and externally.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
needs fixingThe home did not have effective audits to identify problems and monitor the quality of care. Daily medicines checks had not identified the issues found by inspectors.
“At the time of our visit audits were not in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post at the inspection. The person managing the home had applied to become the registered manager, but the application had not yet been completed.
“At the time of our inspection the service did not have a registered manager.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure medicines are not crushed without the proper authorisation, and how are medicine records now checked?
- 02How do you record consent and best-interest decisions for people who may lack capacity?
- 03What happened after the incident involving a person having access to all their medicines, and what safeguards are now in place?
- 04Has the person managing the home become the registered manager, or what is the current management arrangement?
- 05What regular audits and family meetings are now in place to identify concerns and monitor care quality?
This was the home’s first inspection after registration and covered all five CQC questions; there were no previous ratings to carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 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 Whincup Care Limited
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 February 2017.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.