CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wilsmere House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. This included testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, visitor checks and managing possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were keeping people safe.
The inspection took place on 3 November 2020 as part of a CQC thematic review of infection control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic. It was announced in advance.
Inspectors found regular Covid-19 testing, staff training, use of protective equipment, visitor screening and enhanced cleaning. They were also assured that the home followed shielding, social distancing, admission and infection outbreak procedures.
This was not a full inspection of the home. The service was inspected but not rated overall, and the Safe question was also inspected but not rated.
Covid-19 testing and training
People and staff had regular Covid-19 testing. Staff were trained in infection control, hand washing and the safe use of protective equipment.
“All staff had received training about Covid19, infection control, hand washing and in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Visitor safety checks
Visitors were screened, had their temperature checked and were asked about symptoms and possible contact with Covid-19.
“All visitors to the home were screened and risked assessed.” from the report
Cleaning and staff arrangements
Staff did not work across different units, and frequently touched areas were cleaned regularly to reduce the spread of infection.
“To reduce the risk of infection transmission, staff did not work across different units and enhanced cleaning schedules were in place.” from the report
Keeping in touch with families
The home supported contact with family and friends through garden visits, telephone and video calls. Religious services were also streamed online.
“The care home had supported people to keep in contact with family and friends.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your Covid-19 testing and infection control arrangements changed since the inspection on 3 November 2020?
- 02What are the current visiting arrangements, and how are visitors screened?
- 03How do you make sure staff do not work across different units when infection risks are high?
- 04How will you help my relative keep in contact with family and friends if visiting is restricted?
- 05Can you share the home's ratings or inspection information for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control under Safe; it was not a full inspection and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 November 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, January 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines management was not always safe.
This was a planned inspection over 26 and 28 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care files, staff records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found personalised care, kind staff, good activities, strong communication support and an open management culture.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found problems with some medicines records and storage checks. No harm was found, and the home acted quickly to correct the issues. The home had been rated Good overall at the previous inspection, but the Safe rating had fallen from Good.
Kind and respectful care
Relatives and inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff supported people without rushing them and protected their dignity.
“We observed caring and positive interactions from staff who knew people well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, cultural and religious needs. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“Staff promoted a person-centred approach to people's care and support.” from the report
Communication support
The home used pictures, signs, communication devices, tablets and translation tools to help people express their needs and stay connected.
“Pictures, signs, an alphabet board and an eye gaze communication device were tools used to help staff communicate with people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in varied activities and community events. Staff also supported important family relationships and personal interests.
“People were provided with opportunities to take part in a range of activities.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found that managers listened to people and relatives, reviewed incidents and complaints, and acted quickly when improvements were needed.
“There was a positive, open and supportive culture at the service.” from the report
Medicine allergy records
seriousTwo people's care plans recorded allergies, but the allergies were not recorded on their medicines administration records. This could mean staff giving medicines were not aware of them.
“Two people's written profiles in their care plans indicated that they had allergies, but this information had not been recorded on their MARs” from the report
Medicine storage checks
seriousRecords did not always show minimum and maximum temperatures, and thermometers were not reset daily. This created a risk that medicines might not be stored safely or remain effective.
“records did not show that minimum, maximum temperatures were always recorded, and thermometers were not being reset daily” from the report
Medicine protocols
needs fixingProtocols for medicines given when needed had been checked and signed by only one nurse. The report says a second trained and skilled staff member should check them before use.
“These had been written and signed by one nurse.” from the report
Emergency information access
needs fixingIn one unit, it was not initially clear how staff could quickly access do not attempt resuscitation information in an emergency. The home addressed this promptly.
“This could possibly lead to a delay in staff carrying out emergency resuscitation procedures.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every person's allergies are clearly recorded on their medicines administration record?
- 02How are medicines fridge and clinical room temperatures checked, recorded and acted on each day?
- 03How are protocols for medicines given when needed checked and signed before they are first used?
- 04How do you make sure staff have enough time to spend quality time with residents?
- 05Where can staff quickly find do not attempt resuscitation information during an emergency?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions; Safe was rated Requires Improvement and the other four key questions were rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 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.
Every inspection of Wilsmere House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Harrow
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 £1,330 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.