CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wings
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- There were not enough staff to meet people's needs consistently, and inspectors could not evidence that funded one-to-one hours were being provided. Recruitment checks, medicines records, safeguarding and infection control arrangements were positive.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People did not always receive individualised support or enough help to make choices and take part in activities they enjoyed. Some records used standard templates rather than being centred on each person's needs.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Provider oversight had not led to improvements being embedded over the two years since the previous inspection. Staffing shortages and practices that limited people's choice and freedom continued to affect the service.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found ongoing staffing, person-centred care and leadership problems.
This was an unannounced inspection of the home. One inspector visited on 5 April 2022, spoke with three people and four staff, and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records. Further information was checked after the visit.
The home was not consistently able to provide enough suitable staff. People sometimes missed planned activities, appointments or work because there were not enough staff who knew them well or could drive. Inspectors also found that people did not always have enough choice and control over their support.
Medicines were recorded without gaps and people were protected from abuse. However, medicines were given in a way that did not always respect people's preferences. The home also used one locked medicines cabinet and people waited for their medicines to be dispensed.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The report says these problems had also been found at the previous inspection, published in April 2020, and the provider remained in breach of regulations.
Safeguarding
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Medicine records
Medicine records were complete, and inspectors found no gaps. Staff had medicine training and regular competency checks.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) were in place for all people at the home to support staff with the administration of medicines. There were no gaps in the records.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The home followed checks intended to support safer recruitment, including references, employment history and health screening.
“Robust recruitment procedures were followed to ensure the right people were employed to work in the service.” from the report
Communication support
Care plans included information about how people communicated. Staff recognised when one person was in pain and sought medical help.
“On the day of our visit staff were able to understand the person was in pain and sought medical intervention for the person.” from the report
Openness to feedback
The manager was described as accessible and used incidents and feedback to review care. The service also worked with health and social care professionals.
“The registered manager was open and transparent when dealing with any issues or concerns.” from the report
Not enough suitable staff
seriousThere were ongoing staff shortages, with heavy use of agency workers. People missed activities and some staff reported that late shifts could be unsafe.
“There continued to be insufficient staff available to meet people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
Missed activities and outings
needs fixingPeople did not consistently receive planned daytime activities, appointments, work or social events because there were not enough staff with the right skills or ability to drive.
“On the day of our visit people had missed their daytime occupations because there were insufficient staff that could drive or had other skills to support them.” from the report
Care plans not personal enough
seriousRecords were not always tailored to the individual. One person without family or a representative had not been given an independent voice to help develop a person-centred plan.
“People's records were not individualised and centred on that person.” from the report
Restrictions and choice
needs fixingA restriction placed on one person affected everyone living at the home. Inspectors also found that people were not always supported to have choice, control and independence.
“The restrictions placed upon one person with regards access and freedom of movement outside of the enclosed garden was placed upon everyone that resided at Wings.” from the report
Medicines did not always respect preferences
needs fixingPeople were called to wait outside the office for medicines. They were not supported to manage their own medicines with safeguards where this might have been suitable.
“Medicines were administered in a timely manner but not always in a way that respected people's preferences.” from the report
Weak provider oversight
seriousThe provider had not made sure that improvements were put into practice and maintained over the two years since the previous inspection.
“We have not found timely actions that have been embedded and sustained over the two years between our inspections.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff posts are currently vacant, and how will you make sure enough staff who know residents well are on each shift?
- 02How will you guarantee each person's funded one-to-one hours, planned activities, appointments and work are provided?
- 03How are residents involved in deciding about restrictions, access to the garden and community, and their freedom of movement?
- 04How do you support each person to manage or take their medicines independently where appropriate, and respect their preferred way of receiving them?
- 05What changes have been made since this inspection to make care plans individual and to check that improvements are sustained?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 2022 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, April 2020
Wings was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but staffing, repairs, activities and management needed significant improvement.
The inspection took place on 22 January 2020. One inspector spoke with two people and five staff, and reviewed care records, medicine records, training information and management records. Relatives and healthcare professionals were contacted but no responses were received.
People were generally treated with kindness and respect. Medicines were managed safely, staff understood safeguarding, people were supported with food and healthcare, and staff sought consent for care.
However, there were not always enough staff to meet people's needs or support them to go out. The home was poorly maintained in places, some training was out of date, care plans were not always current, and people did not consistently receive support with activities, independence and community involvement.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently providing safe, effective, responsive or well-led care. Caring was rated Good. The provider was asked for an action plan, and the CQC said it would monitor progress and return for another inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with dignity and staff understood their needs and preferences. Staff encouraged people to do tasks for themselves where possible.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and who encouraged people to be as independent as possible within their home.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“People were supported by staff who had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibility to identify and report concerns of abuse.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicine records were complete and accurate in the sample checked. Medicines were stored securely and instructions for as-needed medicines were clear.
“Medicines records were completed accurately and the sample of medicines we counted tallied with the amount recorded.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People helped choose menus that reflected their likes and dislikes. Staff supported people to access healthcare professionals when needed.
“People were involved in choosing what they wanted to eat and drink and made menus for the week.” from the report
Staffing shortages
seriousThere were not always enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. This also stopped some people attending work, social events and other community activities.
“There were not always sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet all people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
Limited activities and independence
seriousPeople were not consistently supported to develop skills, follow hobbies or take part in community life. Records did not show enough evidence that opportunities were being offered and reviewed.
“The provider had failed to ensure staff supported people to follow their interests and take part in activities.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe home had no registered manager, and its checks did not reliably identify or fix problems with care plans, records and the environment.
“There were ineffective systems and processes in place to enable the management team to monitor the service and drive improvements as required.” from the report
Out-of-date training
needs fixingSome staff training had not been refreshed in line with the provider's own schedule.
“Some training had not been refreshed according to the provider's own training schedule.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff are now in post, and how will you make sure there are enough staff for planned one-to-one support?
- 02What repairs have been completed since the inspection, including the bathroom flooring, mould, carpets, furniture and radiator covers?
- 03How does each person now get regular opportunities to go out, attend work or social events, and take part in activities they enjoy?
- 04How have care plans been reviewed with people so they reflect current needs, choices and preferences?
- 05Who is currently managing the home, and what regular checks now make sure problems are found and fixed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions and both the care and accommodation provided by the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 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 Wings
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 April 2015.
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 Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.