CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wigston
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and staff understood how to manage risks. Inspectors found no system for staff to call for emergency help if they could not break away from an unsafe situation, and the home ordered radio devices during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans were personalised and staff had suitable training. However, health action plans were not always up to date, some annual health checks were overdue, and relatives and professionals had not always been consulted in best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They understood individual communication methods and supported people to make choices and be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was tailored to people's needs, communication styles, interests and goals. People were supported to take part in activities, maintain relationships and raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers were visible, approachable and acted on some issues during the inspection. However, records about health plans, incidents, debriefs and restrictive practices were not always complete, and some care records were kept in an unlocked cupboard in a communal area.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Wigston was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but records, health follow-up and leadership oversight needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 9 and 16 May 2022. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records. They also checked infection prevention measures.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. Staff understood people's communication needs, supported their independence and provided kind care. Staffing had improved after a period of high agency use, and people were supported with activities, healthcare and relationships.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement because Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps in health records, some overdue health checks, incomplete records about learning from incidents, and weaknesses in oversight. The previous overall rating was Good, published in December 2018.
Kind and respectful care
Staff provided compassionate care and respected people's privacy, dignity and choices.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who we observed to use positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, communication methods, strengths and longer-term goals. Staff knew how to adapt support to each person.
“People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations.” from the report
Improved staffing
Staffing had become more stable after high agency use and vacancies earlier in the year. Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and support activities and visits.
“A successful recruitment drive had resulted in all but one of the staff vacancies being filled.” from the report
Emergency assistance for staff
needs fixingThere was no system for staff to call for emergency help if they could not break away from an unsafe situation. Radio devices were ordered during the inspection.
“There was no system in place for staff to call for emergency assistance if they were unable to 'breakaway' from an unsafe situation.” from the report
Health information and checks
needs fixingHealth action plans did not always contain current appointment information. Some annual health checks were overdue, although these were booked during the inspection.
“People had health actions plans which were used by health and social care professionals to support them in the way they needed.” from the report
Incomplete learning records
needs fixingStaff said lessons were shared after accidents and incidents, but this was not always recorded in enough detail. Records about debriefs and restrictive practices also needed improvement.
“Whilst staff told us lessons learned were shared, this was not always recorded.” from the report
DoLS reporting
needs fixingOne condition attached to a DoLS authorisation had only been partly met because reporting requirements had been misunderstood. The report recommended clarifying these arrangements with the local authority.
“We recommend the provider clarify the reporting arrangements with the Local Authority for one person's DoLS condition.” from the report
Secure storage of records
needs fixingSome care records were stored in an unlocked cupboard in a communal area. Managers said they would move them to secure storage.
“Some of people's care records were stored in an unlocked cupboard in a communal area.” from the report
- 01Have the radio-controlled devices for emergency assistance been installed, and how are they tested?
- 02How do you now make sure health action plans contain all current appointments and that annual health checks happen on time?
- 03How are lessons from accidents, incidents, debriefs and restrictive practices recorded and checked by managers?
- 04What action was taken to clarify the reporting requirements for the DoLS condition?
- 05Are all care records now stored securely, and how is this checked?
This inspection considered all five key questions, infection prevention and control, and the care received by five of the seven people who used personal care. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 June 2022 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, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were mostly assured that infection control measures kept people safe, with one mask-wearing issue corrected immediately.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 9 December 2020. Inspectors were checking infection prevention and control after receiving concerns about these arrangements.
The inspectors found good practice in visitor checks, hand hygiene, use of protective equipment, social distancing, testing, cleaning and ventilation. People were risk assessed for visits, shielding and isolation.
The home was rated “inspected but not rated”. Inspectors were mostly assured that safe infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. One staff member was not wearing a mask when inspectors arrived, but this was dealt with immediately.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to follow infection control measures, including temperature checks, hand washing, sanitising and wearing protective equipment.
“Visitors followed the provider's infection prevention and control procedures which included temperature checks, hand washing and sanitising and wearing PPE (personal protective equipment).” from the report
Visits and social contact
People were risk assessed so that visits could take place as safely as possible. Communal areas were changed to support social distancing.
“People using the service were risk assessed to ensure that if they did see relatives and friends this was done as safely as possible.” from the report
Support with isolation
The home had arrangements to shield or isolate people when necessary, while considering their rights and best interests.
“Systems were in place to shield and isolate people where necessary considering their rights and best interests.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the premises clean, hygienic and well ventilated, with suitable cleaning products being used.
“The premises were well-ventilated, clean and hygienic. Staff used effective cleaning products to prevent and control infection.” from the report
Mask use
needs fixingOne staff member was not wearing a mask when inspectors arrived. The provider addressed this immediately, and all staff were wearing masks by the end of the visit.
“One member of staff was not wearing a mask when we arrived at the service.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that all staff wear masks correctly and consistently?
- 02What happens if a resident or visitor may have been exposed to an infection?
- 03How are visits risk assessed, and how do you balance safety with residents' rights to see family and friends?
- 04How are residents supported if they do not want to take part in COVID-19 testing?
- 05How do you maintain social distancing, cleaning and ventilation in communal areas?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures, so the service was inspected but not rated overall and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 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 Wigston
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 July 2013.
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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.