CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Winwick Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staffing levels, recruitment checks, safeguarding systems and medicines records were generally satisfactory. Inspectors noted missing safety features in parts of the property and some medicines procedures that needed completing.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were assessed and reviewed, and they had suitable food and access to health professionals. Some staff training was incomplete, including training about the Mental Capacity Act, deprivation of liberty safeguards and infection control.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were warm, attentive and respectful. They supported people’s preferred routines, communication, independence and family relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were organised and person-centred. People had weekly activity plans, community opportunities and support to communicate choices. The home did not specialise in end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- A registered manager was in place and managers showed good knowledge of people’s needs. Audits and independent visits were used to monitor the home, although family feedback specifically about this home had not yet been included in the provider’s survey.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Winwick Park was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some environmental, medicines and staff training issues to address.
This was the home’s first CQC inspection since registration. It was unannounced and took place over two days in June 2018. Inspectors spoke with staff, managers and relatives, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, complaints and safety checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and respect. People appeared relaxed, comfortable, well-groomed and content.
Care plans and risk assessments were in place and medicines were generally managed correctly. People had access to health professionals, nutritious food, activities and communication support suited to their needs.
Inspectors identified some matters needing attention. These included missing safety features in parts of the building, gaps in some staff training, and medicines procedures that were still being developed. The report says some action was taken or promised after the inspection.
Respectful care
Staff treated people with dignity, protected their privacy and responded to their communication and support needs. People appeared comfortable and content in the home.
“Staff interactions were warm and relaxed and people using the service were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was safeguarded.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s routines, preferences, risks, communication needs and important personal information. Staff used pictures and other approaches to help people make choices.
“Care and support plan records, risk assessments and supporting documentation had been updated to ensure staff had access to the requisite information to assist in the delivery of person centred care.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People were supported to choose food and had access to health and social care professionals according to their needs. Staff recorded food and fluid intake.
“People had access to a choice of nutritious meals and systems were in place to liaise with GPs and other health and social care professionals when necessary, to maintain people's health and wellbeing.” from the report
Activities and communication
People had activity plans and access to community, leisure and family activities. Staff used picture-based communication to help people understand information and express choices.
“The process was a valuable tool to assist in the promotion of effective communication and helped to reduce anxieties and difficulties for people who experience difficulties when processing information and decision making.” from the report
Management checks
The provider had audits, independent visits and other checks covering care records, medicines, safety and staffing.
“A range of auditing systems had been established by the provider to ensure key aspects of the service could be monitored effectively.” from the report
Building safety features
needs fixingSome radiators did not have protective guards, window restrictors were not fitted throughout the property and hot-water risks were not fully included in environmental risk assessments.
“We noted that the property was not fitted with thermostatic mixing valves to regulate the hot water temperature and that not all radiators were fitted with protective guards.” from the report
Medicines procedures
needs fixingPRN, or as-needed, medicines did not yet have written protocols during the inspection. The manager later sent inspectors two protocols, and formal recording of staff medicines competency was still due to be completed.
“At the time of our inspection, PRN protocols had not been developed.” from the report
Staff training gaps
needs fixingInspectors found gaps in training about the Mental Capacity Act, deprivation of liberty safeguards, manual handling and infection control.
“Furthermore, no record of infection control training was recorded.” from the report
Bathroom maintenance
minorOne bathroom needed a thorough clean and had loose tap fittings. Maintenance and resealing work was expected.
“We noted that the bathroom had loose tap fittings and needed a thorough clean.” from the report
- 01Have thermostatic mixing valves, radiator guards and window restrictors now been fitted wherever needed?
- 02How are hot-water and other environmental risks now recorded and reviewed?
- 03Have all staff completed training on the Mental Capacity Act, deprivation of liberty safeguards and infection control?
- 04Are PRN medicines now supported by written protocols, and how is each staff member’s medicines competency formally checked?
- 05Has the bathroom cleaning and maintenance work been completed?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the premises; there were no previous ratings to carry over. 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 Winwick Park
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 February 2017.
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 Warrington
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.