CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Winton Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Winton Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with all five areas rated Good.
Inspectors visited on 19, 24 and 28 June 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, the manager and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care, medicine and staff records and observed care.
The home supported up to nine people with learning disabilities and mental health needs. Six people lived there at the time. Inspectors found that people felt safe, medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and risks were reviewed.
People were supported to make choices, build skills and become more independent. Staff were described as welcoming, calm and friendly. Care plans were reviewed and the home supported activities, community access and contact with families.
All five CQC areas were rated Good. This was an improvement from the previous Requires Improvement ratings for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, published in May 2018. Caring remained Good.
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make choices, take positive risks safely and develop skills for greater independence.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Risks were reviewed and medicines were administered by trained staff using safe systems.
“Medicines were managed safely, the service had implemented safe systems and processes which meant people received their medicines when they needed it and in line with best practice.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff positively. Inspectors observed respect for privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People, professionals and their families described the staff as being, "welcoming, calm, and friendly" and the atmosphere of the home as homely, relaxed and engaging.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to take part in activities matching their interests, use community facilities and maintain relationships.
“People were supported to access the community and participate in activities which matched their hobbies and interests and were reflected in individual support plans.” from the report
Improved leadership
The manager and staff worked together positively, with regular audits and evidence that lessons from incidents were shared.
“Leadership was visible and promoted good teamwork.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you tailor positive risk-taking and independence support to my relative's needs?
- 02How do you review support plans with each person and make sure they reflect changing needs and preferences?
- 03How will you support my relative's preferred way of communicating, including any use of picture aids or Makaton?
- 04How do you make sure medicines, including as-required medicines, are given safely and recorded properly?
- 05What improvements from the previous inspection have you continued to monitor?
This was a scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous inspection was in May 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 September 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, May 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but serious problems with safety, staff training, records and management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection. It began as a focused check after information about possible risks, but was extended to cover all five areas. Inspectors visited on 5 and 7 March 2018 and gathered further evidence until 14 March 2018. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home supported six young adults, although it was registered for up to nine people. People had needs linked to mental health, learning disabilities or autism, and some could become distressed or aggressive. Inspectors found that some people did not always feel safe. Staff did not always have the training and experience needed, staffing at night was not always suitable, and care plans and records did not always match the care being given.
The inspectors found kind and respectful care. People were offered choices, supported with food, health needs and activities, and usually felt listened to. However, action was not always taken quickly, and quality checks had failed to identify important problems. The overall rating and the ratings for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were largely positive about the care. Staff were observed treating people and visitors with kindness, dignity and respect.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a caring, respectful and compassionate manner.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in everyday decisions and were supported to develop skills and manage parts of their daily lives themselves.
“Staff supported people to maintain their independence and the impact of this support was evident throughout our inspection.” from the report
Health and meals
People had contact with a range of health professionals, and there were systems to make sure people had enough to eat and drink. Meals were flexible and people helped with food preparation.
“People were supported with their day to day health needs in conjunction with health care professionals.” from the report
Activities and communication
People took part in activities such as cinema trips, cycling, shopping and colouring. Communication tools and social stories helped some people understand routines and difficult situations.
“Social stories were developed by the positive behaviour support team to support people at times they found difficult.” from the report
People did not always feel safe
seriousOne person described being hurt by another person living in the home. Inspectors also found that an incident involving restraint by an untrained staff member had not been reported to safeguarding agencies or the CQC.
“People did not always feel safe. They were living with other people who had difficulty managing their emotions” from the report
Insufficiently trained night staff
seriousStaffing at night did not always match people's needs. On some nights staff lacked training in medicines, first aid, fire safety or physical intervention.
“This failure to deploy appropriately trained staff put staff and people at risk of harm.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome staff making decisions about medicines given when needed were not trained to give them. Records did not always explain why these medicines had been given or whether they had worked.
“Medicines administration was not effective or safe.” from the report
Care plans and records were incomplete
needs fixingCare plans did not always reflect current practice or professional guidance. Incomplete and inaccurate records made it difficult to understand people's experiences and check whether they received the right support.
“Recording omissions and inaccuracies made it difficult to review people's experience of care.” from the report
Restrictions were not always properly considered
needs fixingSome restrictions were not assessed through the Mental Capacity Act process. This meant people might have restrictions that were not necessary for them.
“This missed out an important step and meant that people may have restrictions in place that were not necessary for them as individuals.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's audits and monitoring systems did not identify or correct the problems found during the inspection.
“The systems in place did not effectively assess, monitor and improve the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure every shift, especially at night, has staff trained in medicines, first aid, fire safety and physical intervention?
- 02How do you make sure staff follow each person's current care plan and do not rely on unwritten instructions?
- 03What checks now make sure safeguarding incidents, including any restraint by untrained staff, are reported to the right agencies?
- 04How are medicines given when needed now recorded, including the reason for giving them and whether they worked?
- 05How do you ensure restrictions are assessed under the Mental Capacity Act and kept as least restrictive as possible?
This began as a focused inspection about potential risks but was extended to a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions; the report also includes further evidence gathered after the visits. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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.
Every inspection of Winton Lodge
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 2016.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“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.