CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wingfield Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found effective risk assessments, enough staff and safe arrangements for medicines. They also found improvements in cleanliness and infection prevention.
- Effective?
- Good
- People made their own decisions and staff had the skills and training to support them. People were supported with meals, healthcare appointments and developing independent living skills.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and compassionate care. Staff knew people's preferences, respected privacy and supported people to express their views.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Support plans were person centred, but some were repetitive or had not been updated after reviews and changes in need. People had activities, employment opportunities, family contact and ways to complain.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Staff said the team worked well together and the manager was approachable. Quality checks, meetings and action plans were used to monitor the service and respond to shortfalls.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Wingfield Road rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care but care plans were not always kept up to date.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 April 2018. One inspector spoke with three people, four staff and the registered manager. They reviewed care plans, staffing records, policies, medicines information and quality checks. They also looked around the home and observed care.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training and kind interactions. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, keep in touch with relatives and take part in activities or work.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Some support plans were repetitive, and some had not been updated after people's needs changed. Some risk information was also duplicated or less detailed than the separate positive behaviour support plans.
The overall rating was Good. Safe had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in November 2016. Responsive was still rated Requires Improvement.
Safe support and staffing
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and staff understood people's individual risks. People said there were enough staff to provide the support they needed.
“The deployment of staff ensured there was sufficient staff to meet people's support needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People made their own decisions and were supported to build everyday skills. Activities included employment, clubs, shopping, cooking and building a shed.
“People made their own decisions and where necessary staff helped with decision making.” from the report
Learning and oversight
Staff received training and regular supervision. The home used meetings, audits and action plans to identify and monitor improvements.
“Quality assurance systems were in place.” from the report
Care plans were not always current
needs fixingSome support plans had not been updated after people's needs changed. This included increased anxiety and involvement from mental health services.
“However the support plan was not updated to reflect this person's changing needs.” from the report
Risk guidance was duplicated
needs fixingSome records did not contain the same detail as the positive behaviour support plans. Inspectors said staff might not manage difficult situations correctly if they missed the more detailed guidance.
“Were the staff not to realise there was more detailed guidance available challenging situations may not be managed correctly.” from the report
Noise in the home
needs fixingOne person was unhappy about noise and wanted a quieter place. Staff had made agreements about music and noise, but these were not always maintained.
“I don't like it because of the noise. I have told them but nothing is done.” from the report
A room needed cleaning and repair
minorInspectors raised that the sleeping and office room needed cleaning and repair. The manager said this would be addressed during the day.
“We raised with the staff that the sleeping/office was in need of cleaning and repair.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure support plans are updated promptly when someone's anxiety, mental health or other needs change?
- 02How do you ensure staff follow the most detailed positive behaviour support guidance during escalating situations?
- 03What has been done to reduce noise and support people who need a quieter environment?
- 04Has the sleeping and office room been cleaned and repaired, and how is this now checked?
- 05What specific improvements have been made since the Responsive rating remained Requires Improvement?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions, with records, staffing, medicines, the premises and observed care reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Wingfield Road was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care, but problems with cleanliness, care plans, medicines guidance and activities.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 17 November 2016. Inspectors spoke with four people, staff and managers, watched how staff supported people, and checked care and management records for three people.
The home was calm and people generally felt safe. Staff were kind, respectful and knew people's preferences. People received support with health needs, food, daily decisions and activities. However, one bedroom was dirty, had strong smells and poor ventilation. Medicines guidance was incomplete, and there was a discrepancy in the recorded medicine stock.
Care plans were not always accurate, consistent or up to date. People said activities were restricted when staffing levels were low, and some suggestions had not been acted on. The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and well-led were rated Good, while safe and responsive were rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw staff being patient, polite and respectful. People were given time to make decisions and move between activities.
“We observed interactions that were kind, patient and sensitive. There was a friendly and professional attitude shown between members of staff.” from the report
Support for health needs
People had planned support for their health conditions and access to GPs and other health and social care professionals.
“Health Action Plans were in place for people to ensure there was planned support from GPs and the primary healthcare team.” from the report
People's independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, prepare meals and manage some areas of their own care and medicines.
“People living at the service had capacity to consent to daily living decisions and they signed agreements to share information with social and healthcare professionals.” from the report
Safeguarding knowledge
Staff had received safeguarding training and could explain what to do if they suspected abuse.
“These staff said the training helped them recognise the signs of abuse and the actions they must take for alleged abuse.” from the report
Bedroom cleanliness and ventilation
seriousOne bedroom was dirty, had strong unpleasant smells and lacked adequate ventilation. Inspectors said this created an infection-control risk.
“This bedroom was dirty, there were strong unpleasant odours. We saw debris of food and waste matter on the floor, bed and walls.” from the report
Incomplete care plans
needs fixingSome care plans contained repeated or conflicting information and had not been updated when staff identified that guidance was no longer working.
“This meant staff feedback for more up to date guidance was not taken seriously or acted upon.” from the report
Medicines guidance and records
seriousPRN medicines did not always have guidance about why they should be given or what signs to look for. Inspectors also found a difference between the expected and recorded tablet stock.
“We also noted a discrepancy between the numbers of tablets that should have been in stock when compared to those that had been signed as given.” from the report
Staffing and activities
needs fixingStaff reported shortages and said activities could be restricted when staffing levels were low. People said activities they had agreed were not always happening.
“Not enough staff so can't go out when I want” from the report
Home-specific feedback
minorThe survey results combined feedback from four houses, so the manager could not identify which comments related specifically to this home.
“This meant it was not possible to determine the specific comments and views of the people living at this service.” from the report
- 01What has been done to improve the bedroom's cleanliness, flooring and ventilation, and how are bedrooms now included in infection-control checks?
- 02How do you make sure PRN medicines have clear guidance about when they should be given and that medicine stock records are correct?
- 03How have care plans been checked and updated so that staff are following consistent, current information?
- 04What staffing levels are normally expected, how often are agency staff used, and how do you prevent activities being cancelled?
- 05How do people now suggest activities and see that agreed activities are carried out?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, including observations, conversations with people and staff, and checks of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 2017 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 Wingfield Road
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 February 2012.
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 two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.