CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wilkinson Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found some safety, activity, record-keeping and management weaknesses, with an ongoing breach of good governance.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 27 June and 13 July 2023, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines systems had improved, safeguarding referrals were made correctly, and the home was following the Mental Capacity Act. However, risk management, premises security, infection control and cleanliness were not consistently effective.
Some people said they were bored. Records did not always show that activities, one-to-one time and community access were provided as planned. Records about care assessments, agency staff training and people's cooking skills were also incomplete.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. The home remained in breach of Regulation 17 because its systems for checking quality, safety, records and people's outcomes were not effective enough. The caring question was not inspected, so its previous rating was used in the overall rating.
Staffing
Inspectors found that staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act
The home was working within the Mental Capacity Act. Where people were deprived of their liberty, the necessary legal authorisations were in place.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.” from the report
Medicines
The home had improved its medicines systems since the previous inspection. Inspectors found only minor recording shortfalls with topical medicines, which the manager said had been addressed.
“A system was in place to manage medicines safely.” from the report
Progress towards independence
Management gave examples of people gaining independence and wellbeing, including several people moving on to independent living.
“They also explained how several people had moved onto independent living.” from the report
Risk and premises safety
seriousRisk checks and monitoring were not fully effective. Inspectors found problems involving premises security, infection control, one person's room and visitor safety.
“An effective system to ensure risks were assessed, monitored, and managed was not fully in place.” from the report
Activities and community access
needs fixingSome people felt bored. Records did not always show meaningful occupation or one-to-one support, and vehicle and driver availability limited access to the local community.
“Some people told us they were bored.” from the report
Agency staff training records
needs fixingThe home had a staff training system, but records did not always show that agency staff had completed training for the specific needs of residents.
“Records relating to agency staff did not always demonstrate what training they had undertaken to meet the specific needs of people who lived at the service.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home had not done enough to monitor quality, safety, records and people's outcomes. This was an ongoing breach of Regulation 17.
“An effective system to monitor the quality and safety of the service was still not fully in place.” from the report
Communication and complaints oversight
needs fixingSeveral relatives wanted more communication. Complaints were recorded in care plans, but there was no central overview to identify patterns and trends.
“There was no central overview of the number or type of complaints or concerns that people had raised so any themes and trends could be analysed and monitored.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to risk assessments, premises security, infection control and visitor safety since this inspection?
- 02How do you now prove that agency staff have completed training for the specific needs of people living here?
- 03How do you record and monitor one-to-one hours, meaningful activities and access to the local community?
- 04What central system now records complaints and concerns, and how do you use it to identify patterns?
- 05How are relatives and health and social care professionals now asked for feedback and kept informed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not inspected and its previous comprehensive-inspection rating was carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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, September 2023
Wilkinson Park is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks around cleanliness, staffing records, activities and management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection prompted by concerns about cleanliness, risk assessment and staff deployment. Inspectors visited on 21 and 27 July and 3 August 2022, with inspection activity ending on 13 September 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was not always safe or responsive. Some areas were not clean, infection control procedures were not always followed, and records did not always show that funded one-to-one support or meaningful activities had been provided. Medicines were mostly managed safely, but some best-practice steps were missed.
Management oversight was not strong enough to identify and correct problems consistently. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 29 December 2020, to Requires Improvement. CQC requested an action plan and said it would continue to monitor the home.
Risk assessments
Electronic risk assessments were in place and had been updated to reflect people's individual risks.
“Electronic risk assessments were in place which had been updated to reflect specific risks relating to people.” from the report
Safer recruitment
The home carried out recruitment checks before staff started work.
“Recruitment checks were carried out prior to staff starting work to help ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.” from the report
Medicines
Most aspects of medicines management were safe, although inspectors identified some areas needing better practice.
“Other aspects of medicines management were managed safely.” from the report
Communication
The provider was meeting the Accessible Information Standard and said information could be provided in another format if needed.
“The provider was meeting the Accessible Information Standard.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousNot all areas were clean, and systems for managing infection risks were not fully effective. Inspectors said this increased the risk of harm.
“An effective system to ensure risks were assessed, monitored and managed in relation to infection control was not fully in place. Not all areas of the home were clean.” from the report
Activities and complaints
needs fixingSome people said activities were limited. Records did not always show meaningful occupation, and some people said their complaints or concerns had not led to action.
“Some people told us they had raised a complaint or concern; but no action had been taken.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousQuality and safety monitoring was not strong enough, and the provider had not maintained improvements from the previous inspection. Inspectors also found a history of repeated non-compliance.
“The provider had been rated requires improvement and in breach of the regulations at four of the six inspections carried out since 2015.” from the report
Medicines procedures
needs fixingBest-practice guidance was not always followed for controlled drugs, and some medicines with a shorter shelf life were not dated when opened.
“Best practice guidance was not being followed in relation to the administration of medicines which the service were managing as 'controlled drugs.'” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure all areas of the home are clean and infection control procedures are followed every day?
- 02How do you now record and check that each person's funded one-to-one support is delivered?
- 03What activities are currently available, and how do you record whether they are meaningful for each person?
- 04How are complaints and concerns recorded, reviewed and acted on, and how will families be told about the outcome?
- 05What action has been taken to improve management oversight and ensure all DoLS outcomes are notified to CQC?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, widened to include Responsive; Effective and Caring were not inspected and the report says ratings for uninspected questions were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 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 Wilkinson Park
8 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- October 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2023Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 September 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.