CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Widecombe House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and there were enough staff to support them. Medicines, recruitment, infection control and safety checks were generally managed well, but some health-risk information in care plans lacked detail and some medicines taken when needed did not have protocols recorded.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and understood people's needs. Care was supported by health professionals and advice was acted on, although records of some best-interests decisions did not clearly show that the Mental Capacity Act process had been followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and caring. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's routines, interests and wishes. Activities were tailored to individuals, and inspectors found strong support for people and families at the end of life.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff had confidence in the management. Audits, meetings and feedback systems were used to monitor care and make improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some care records needing more detail.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 and 22 January 2020. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, visitors, staff and health professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and caring. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, good food, suitable training and strong links with health professionals.
There were some areas to improve. Some care plans did not give enough detail about health risks, and records of best-interests decisions under the Mental Capacity Act were not always clear. Not everyone had a protocol recorded for medicines taken when needed. The inspectors made two recommendations, but recorded no breaches of regulations.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently praised the care. Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that staff understood privacy, dignity and people's individual needs.
“People told us they felt safe. Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew what to do if they were concerned about the welfare of any of the people who lived at the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew what caused people stress or anxiety and adapted support around their choices, independence and wellbeing.
“People were placed at the centre of their care and staff developed strong relationships with people and fully understood what caused each person stress or anxiety.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Activities were linked to people's hobbies, past roles and interests. People were also supported with exercise and trips into the community.
“The home employed an activities co-ordinator who developed and provided meaningful activities for people tailored to people's individual hobbies and interests.” from the report
End-of-life care
Staff supported people to receive care that respected their wishes and helped relatives spend meaningful time with them.
“Staff continued to demonstrate a strong commitment to supporting people to receive a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.” from the report
Confident leadership
People, relatives and staff expressed strong confidence in the management. The home had audits and checks covering areas such as care plans, medicines and safety.
“There was a clear management structure in place, which consisted of the provider, registered manager, a deputy manager and senior care staff; each of whom had clear roles and responsibilities.” from the report
Care plans lacked some health detail
needs fixingPlans covering needs such as diabetes, seizures and catheter care did not always give staff enough written guidance. Inspectors recommended that records should contain sufficient information to manage these risks.
“Where people had risks associated to their health needs such as, diabetes, seizures or catheter care, care plans did not contain sufficiently detailed information to guide staff.” from the report
Best-interests decisions were not always clearly recorded
needs fixingSome records did not clearly show that the required process had been followed when decisions were made for people who lacked capacity. Inspectors recommended improvements to assessments and records.
“However, improvements could be made within the home regarding the way best interests decisions were recorded.” from the report
Some medicines-needed protocols were missing
needs fixingNot everyone had a written protocol alongside their records for medicines taken when needed. Management said these were being reviewed and would be replaced when completed.
“Not all people had 'as and when required' (PRN) medicines protocols with their medicine's administration records.” from the report
- 01Have you updated care plans so they give clear instructions for diabetes, seizures, catheter care and other health risks?
- 02How do you now record best-interests decisions for people who cannot make a specific decision themselves?
- 03Do all people who have medicines taken when needed now have an up-to-date protocol with their medicines records?
- 04How do you make sure care remains personalised if the registered manager or other managers are not at the home?
- 05What activities would you offer to match my relative's hobbies, routines and interests?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five CQC areas assessed; the previous rating was Good overall, with Caring previously rated Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring support, including outstanding end of life care.
The inspection took place on 11 and 12 July 2017. The first day was unannounced. One inspector visited, observed care, looked around the home and reviewed care, medicines, staff and quality records. They also spoke with people, relatives, visitors, staff and healthcare professionals.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Caring was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, enough staff to meet people's needs, safe medicines, personalised care plans, suitable activities and strong leadership.
Inspectors highlighted end of life care as exceptional. People and families were involved in planning their wishes, and staff provided sensitive support. The overall rating stayed at Good, the same as at the previous inspection in April 2015, although Safe improved from Requires Improvement to Good and Caring improved from Good to Outstanding.
Exceptional end of life care
People approaching the end of their lives were supported with compassion and sensitivity. Their wishes were recorded and respected, and families were included.
“People receiving end of life care were treated with exceptional care and compassion.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff communicating gently, respecting people's choices and supporting their dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff were kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, with extra one-to-one support when required. Medicines were administered, stored and checked safely.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of people who lived at the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs and preferences in detail. Staff offered varied activities and adapted support for people living with dementia.
“People's care plans continued to be person centred and detailed.” from the report
Strong leadership and oversight
The manager was described as approachable and dedicated. Regular audits, feedback and action plans helped monitor care and identify improvements.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor all aspects of the care and treatment people received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many staff are on duty now, and how do you increase one-to-one support when someone's needs change?
- 02How are medicines, including as-required and disguised medicines, checked and reviewed now?
- 03How do you record and follow each person's end of life wishes, and how are families involved?
- 04What activities are available now for people with dementia and for people who prefer one-to-one support?
- 05Who is currently the registered manager, and how are families asked for feedback or helped to raise concerns?
This was a planned inspection of all five key questions, with the first day unannounced; it reviewed the home overall and considered changes since the April 2015 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 August 2017 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 Widecombe House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 September 2014.
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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.