CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wilson Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, safeguarding, medicines and infection control systems were found to be effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff supported people with their health needs, food and drink, consent and choices. Staff had suitable training and worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported to take part in activities. Care plans were updated when people's needs changed, and complaints were investigated.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had quality systems and had made improvements, but some information was inaccurate or incomplete. Inspectors said management needed to strengthen records, recruitment checks and the consistency of menus.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but the home needed stronger management checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They looked at care records, staff recruitment records and records about quality and management.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People were treated with dignity, supported to make choices, helped to stay safe and given personalised care. Inspectors also found improvements in medicines, cleanliness, activities and safeguarding since the previous inspection.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Inspectors found some records and checks were not accurate or complete, including food information, care records and employment histories. No regulations were breached at this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and listened to them. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's individual needs, preferences and ways of communicating. Activities included community outings and use of a secure garden.
“People received individualised care and support from staff.” from the report
Safer systems
Safeguarding systems had improved, staff understood how to protect people, and medicines were monitored. Staffing was flexible when people's needs changed.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider had effective safeguarding systems in place” from the report
Good involvement of health professionals
Staff knew people's health needs and worked with GPs, community mental health teams and other professionals.
“The service worked in partnership and collaboration with other key organisations such as GP's, community mental health teams and advocacy services to support care provision.” from the report
Some records were inaccurate
needs fixingKitchen information did not always match care plans. One record described a food preference as an allergy, which could cause confusion about dietary needs.
“We found that information kept by the kitchen staff did not accurately reflect information held on some people's care plans.” from the report
Care records did not clearly show involvement
needs fixingAlthough people and relatives said they were involved in care, the records did not always clearly record this involvement.
“Although people and relatives told us they felt involved in their care, care records could be improved to clearly show people's inclusion and involvement.” from the report
Recruitment records needed strengthening
needs fixingThe provider needed to make sure every staff record contained a full employment history.
“We found the provider needed to strengthen their recruitment process further and ensure a full employment history was completed for all staff.” from the report
Menus needed more consistent choice
minorInspectors discussed improving menus so they consistently reflected people's cultural heritage and choices.
“We discussed improvements to develop the menu to give consistent choices with the registered manager.” from the report
- 01How have you corrected the differences between kitchen information and people's care plans?
- 02How do you now record people's involvement in decisions about their care?
- 03How do you make sure every staff member's full employment history is recorded before they start?
- 04What changes have been made to menus to provide consistent choices reflecting people's cultural heritage?
- 05How often are external audits and quality checks now carried out, and how are actions followed up?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, and no regulations were breached at this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 2019 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, July 2018
Wilson Lodge is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but serious safeguarding and management weaknesses remained.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out over three visits in September and October 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, incident records, complaints and quality checks.
People generally said they felt safe, and inspectors found enough staff, medicines support, kind care and activities that met people's needs. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good.
However, three potential safeguarding incidents had not been recognised or reported. Inspectors also found unfinished environmental work, including strong smells in two toilets and unsafe or incorrectly fitted bathroom fixtures. Quality checks had not found these problems or ensured improvements were completed promptly.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently safe or well managed. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The report says the provider had breached regulations and that CQC imposed conditions on the provider's registration.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff offer reassurance, respect privacy and support people with dignity.
“We saw staff knock on bedroom doors and wait for a response before they entered and speak discreetly when offering people personal care.” from the report
Choices and independence
People could make choices about daily routines, food and clothing. Staff encouraged people to do tasks for themselves and supported them to go out.
“People were able to make choices about when to get up in the morning, what to eat, what to wear so they could maintain their independence.” from the report
Activities and community access
People were supported to attend day centres, go shopping, take part in leisure activities and plan a shared holiday.
“People told us they were supported to by staff to attend community day centres, go to the shops or to go out on leisure activities.” from the report
Medicines and healthcare
Inspectors found systems for storing and checking medicines. People could see health professionals when needed and staff responded to healthcare advice.
“We found appropriate systems were in place for the storage of medicines.” from the report
Safeguarding was not reliable
seriousThree potential safeguarding incidents had not been recognised or reported. Care records and handover information had not always been updated, creating a risk that people would not receive the protection they needed.
“We found three potential safeguarding incidents that had not been identified and reported.” from the report
Problems with the premises
needs fixingTwo communal toilets had a strong offensive smell and a carpet was heavily stained. An exposed hot water pipe and incorrectly fitted bathroom fixtures also needed action.
“During the inspection, we found a strong offensive odour in two of the communal toilets; we also found the carpet outside one of the toilets heavily stained.” from the report
Quality checks did not work well enough
seriousAudits had been introduced but did not identify the safeguarding failures, missing CQC notifications or some environmental problems. The provider had not set clear timescales for completing some improvements.
“The systems to check on the safety and quality of the service were not adequate.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every safeguarding concern is recognised, recorded and reported promptly?
- 02Have the three incidents mentioned in the report been fully reviewed, and what action followed?
- 03Have the strong smells in the two communal toilets and the stained carpet been resolved?
- 04Has the exposed hot water pipe and the incorrectly fitted bathroom equipment been made safe?
- 05How are audits now checked to make sure problems are found and fixed within clear timescales?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the home, covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, with visits on three dates. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 July 2018 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 Wilson Lodge
6 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 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 Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.