CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Widnes Hall
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some health and safety risks were not assessed or managed well. Inspectors found environmental hazards, unclean areas, infection control concerns and unsafe storage of some medicines.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People received support with food, healthcare and staff training, but consent was not always obtained lawfully and some care plans lacked clear guidance.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They supported privacy, independence and involvement in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported with activities, relationships, communication, complaints and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had an open and positive culture, but its quality checks were not effective enough to identify and reduce risks. Oversight was weaker while the registered manager was absent.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but weaknesses in safety, consent and management systems created risks.
Inspectors visited without notice on 26 January and 1 February 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, family members and staff. They reviewed care, medicine and recruitment records, along with audits and other management checks.
The home was caring and responsive. People were treated kindly, their privacy and independence were respected, and they were supported with activities, relationships, food and healthcare. Families said staff were approachable and kept them informed.
However, some risks were not properly assessed or managed. Inspectors found hazards and unclean areas, unsafe storage of some medicines, incomplete records and problems with consent paperwork. The provider's checks did not reliably identify these issues, especially while the registered manager was away.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The provider took immediate action to reduce the risks, and CQC requested an action plan and will monitor progress.
Kind and respectful staff
People's dignity, privacy and independence were respected. Families spoke positively about how staff treated their relatives.
“People and family members told us they were treated well and felt respected by staff.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were based on people's needs. Recruitment checks were carried out before staff started work.
“People received care and support from the right amount of suitably skilled and experience staff who were safely recruited.” from the report
Good activities and relationships
People were supported to maintain important relationships and take part in varied activities such as singing, dancing and art.
“We observed people enjoying art and crafts, singing, dancing and armchair exercises.” from the report
Healthcare support
Staff monitored people's health and made prompt referrals to other professionals when needed.
“Referrals for people were made promptly to the appropriate services.” from the report
Risks and infection control
seriousSome risks linked to people's care, the building and infection prevention were not managed properly. Inspectors found hazards, unclean areas and incorrectly stored protective equipment.
“Risk was not always assessed, monitored and managed. This included risks relating to the spread of infection.” from the report
Unlawful consent paperwork
seriousSome care consent forms were signed by staff or relatives without evidence that they had the legal authority to do so. Some mental capacity records also conflicted.
“There were multiple examples were forms giving consent for care were signed on behalf of people by others who did not have the appropriate legal authority.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's systems did not reliably identify problems with safety, consent, care records or the environment. Oversight was not robust during the registered manager's absence.
“The provider failed to operate effective systems to ensure the safety and quality of the service. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Medicine storage
seriousSome medicine storage was unsafe. A medicine room and fridge were left unlocked, and temperature records had gaps.
“A medication room was unlocked whilst unsupervised and a medication fridge containing prescribed medicines was also unlocked in another room that wasn't monitored.” from the report
Damage and cleanliness
needs fixingSome parts of the home needed cleaning or repair, including kitchenettes, worktops, walls, flooring and fixtures.
“Parts of the premises and equipment were unclean and unhygienic.” from the report
- 01What has been done to remove the hazards in the hairdressing room, kitchen cupboards and garden area?
- 02How are you now checking that medicine rooms and fridges remain locked and that fridge temperatures are recorded?
- 03How do you confirm that consent forms are signed by the person or by someone with the correct legal authority?
- 04What extra checks are in place when the registered manager is absent?
- 05Which damaged or unclean areas have been repaired or cleaned, and how is this checked now?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and infection prevention and control across all five key questions; it was the first inspection of the newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 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.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good risk management, infection control and positive leadership feedback, but this was not a full inspection.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 24 May 2021, with telephone calls on 25 May. Inspectors looked at concerns about managing risks and the systems used to oversee safety. They did not investigate the specific incident that prompted the inspection.
Inspectors reviewed three people's care records and other risk, infection control and management records. They spoke with two people, seven relatives and members of staff. They found risk assessments were up to date and that infection control arrangements followed current guidance.
Relatives said people were safe and spoke positively about the care and management. A new manager and deputy had been recruited, but the manager was not yet registered with the CQC. The home was inspected but not rated because only specific areas were checked.
The previous overall rating was Good, published on 24 March 2020. This inspection did not change that rating. The full Safe and Well-led ratings will be assessed at the next comprehensive inspection.
Risk management
Inspectors found current risk assessments and clear care records showing how staff should reduce risks for people.
“Risk assessments were up to date and well managed to identify areas of risk and how people needed to be supported.” from the report
Infection control
The home had arrangements covering visitors, distancing, PPE, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks. Inspectors were assured these followed current guidance.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Positive feedback
Relatives gave positive views about safety, care and communication. They also described the home as well managed.
“The feedback we received form people and staff was very positive about the staff team and their rapport and approach in keeping people informed and supported.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The provider reviewed recent concerns, introduced further staff training and developed policies and procedures about managing risks.
“This had led to further training for staff and development of policy and procedure around management of risks to people at the service.” from the report
Management transition
minorThe home was changing its management arrangements. At the inspection, the manager was not registered with the CQC, so the provider remained legally responsible for how the home was run.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager now started and registered with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home until then?
- 02How are risk assessments reviewed after a fall or other incident, and how are families told about changes?
- 03What further training did staff receive about managing risks, and how is its effect checked?
- 04How does the home currently manage visiting, testing, PPE and infection outbreaks?
- 05When is the next comprehensive inspection expected to assess all five key questions?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about risk management and governance, plus infection control; it did not assess the whole service or change the previous Good rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 June 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.
Every inspection of Widnes Hall
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
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 Halton
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.