CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Winfrith House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Winfrith House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found good community support but concerns about safety, consent, engagement and management.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. One inspector visited on 26 April and 3 May 2023. They observed staff, spoke with staff, a relative and professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found some important safety and record-keeping problems. These included fire doors that did not close, weak checks around legionella risks, incomplete recruitment records and care records that were not always clear or up to date. Some issues were fixed during or after the inspection.
The home was rated Good for being Responsive. Staff supported the person with communication, activities, community access and family relationships. However, the overall rating and the other four areas were Requires Improvement because consent was not always handled lawfully, staff engagement was inconsistent and management systems were not robust enough.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found a clear process for giving medicines as prescribed. Staff who administered medicines had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were safely managed. There was a clear process in place to ensure medicines were administered as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised communication
The care plan described the person's communication needs, and the home had signs, symbols and picture cards to help the person express themselves.
“The persons care plan included detailed information on their communication needs.” from the report
Community and family links
Staff supported the person to take part in activities outside the home and to maintain family relationships.
“Staff supported the person to access and engage in community activities including sensory sessions, swimming and the local and wider community.” from the report
Kindness from some staff
A relative gave positive feedback about the way staff treated their relative. Inspectors also saw the registered manager showing kindness and compassion.
“We observed the registered manager had established a positive rapport with the person and treated them with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Fire and environmental risks
seriousThree fire doors did not close on the first inspection visit, and the provider could not show that legionella risks had been properly assessed and managed. The fire-door issue was resolved by the second visit.
“This meant in the event of a fire, the doors would be ineffective.” from the report
Consent and best-interest decisions
seriousThe provider could not consistently show that it had assessed capacity, sought consent or made decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act. This was a legal breach.
“The provider failed to consistently act in accordance with the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Limited engagement
needs fixingInspectors saw staff use limited verbal prompts and not consistently engage the person in an activity or use the communication methods in the care plan.
“We observed staff did not consistently engage the person in the activity and verbal communication was limited to short prompts with little interaction to demonstrate they had established a good rapport.” from the report
Weak records and oversight
seriousRecords were not always clear, current or consistent. Quality systems did not adequately track maintenance, safeguarding information, risks or staff right-to-work evidence. This was a legal breach.
“The failure to demonstrate good governance and maintain accurate, complete and contemporaneous records was a breach of regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Information sharing
needs fixingProfessionals said information and recommendations were not always shared promptly or followed consistently. The provider also failed to notify CQC about two matters at the time required.
“They told us they were not always assured professional recommendations were consistently followed or shared with staff.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure all fire doors close properly and that legionella risks are assessed and reviewed?
- 02How do you assess a person's capacity, record consent and make best-interest decisions using the least restrictive approach?
- 03How do staff use the person's signs, pictures and other communication methods during everyday activities?
- 04What changes have been made to keep care plans, maintenance records and safeguarding information complete and up to date?
- 05How do you make sure health professionals' recommendations are shared with all staff and followed promptly?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered care home and covered all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 June 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 Winfrith House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 July 2022.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.