CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wisma Mulia
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were safe. They found arrangements for PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 January 2021. It was carried out because of the coronavirus outbreak and focused on infection prevention and control, rather than all aspects of care.
Inspectors found that the home was following infection control guidance. This included safe visiting arrangements, testing and isolation for new admissions, use of PPE, cleaning, social distancing and plans for managing outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas of care.
Visiting arrangements
The home had created a visiting pod and also used technology to help people stay in touch with relatives.
“The provider and managers had set up a visiting 'pod' in accordance with recognised safe visiting guidance.” from the report
Safe admissions
New admissions were tested for COVID-19 and supported to self-isolate for up to 14 days.
“People were only admitted following a negative COVID-19 test result and supported to self-isolate for up to 14 days following admission” from the report
Cleaning and PPE
Inspectors found enhanced cleaning arrangements and appropriate use of protective equipment, supported by staff training and checks.
“Cleaning schedules had been enhanced and were followed by housekeeping staff and care staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged now, and is the visiting pod still available?
- 02What testing and isolation arrangements are used when someone new moves into the home?
- 03How do you check that staff are using PPE correctly and following current infection control guidance?
- 04How are residents monitored for symptoms of infection, and how quickly can they receive clinical support?
- 05What plans are in place if there is an infection outbreak, including how staff are allocated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2021 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, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support, with some care-record and staff-supervision issues and no current registered manager.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 24 and 30 April 2018. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a GP. They observed care and reviewed care files, medicines records, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, respected and supported. Inspectors found enough staff, medicines were being given as prescribed, and people were supported to remain independent and take part in activities.
There were some areas to improve. Supervision records for staff were not always completed as planned. Care plans for two people living with dementia did not always show their views or best-interest decisions. The home did not have a registered manager, but an interim manager was in place while recruitment continued.
The previous overall rating was also Good. Safe had previously been Requires Improvement because medicines were not always given as prescribed. Inspectors said the improvements made since then had been sustained.
Medicines improved
The home had embedded systems to make sure medicines were given and recorded correctly. Inspectors found medicine counts and administration records were accurate.
“At this inspection we found the interim manager and head of care had implemented and embedded effective systems to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People enjoyed positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that people's dignity, choices and privacy were respected.
“People enjoyed positive relationships with each other and care staff.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to make their own choices and stay independent. Staff supported people to go out, manage aspects of their care and take positive risks.
“People valued their independence highly and appreciated that the home encouraged them to retain as much independence as possible.” from the report
Views listened to
People and relatives said concerns were heard and acted on. Residents also held their own meetings about life in the home.
“People and their relative's views regarding the service were sought, discussed and acted upon.” from the report
Dementia care records
needs fixingCare plans for two people living with dementia did not always reflect their views or best-interest decisions. Inspectors recommended that the provider seek recognised guidance on dementia care planning.
“However, two people were living with dementia and there care plans did not always document their views or where decisions had been made in their best interest.” from the report
Staff supervision records
minorNot all staff had structured, documented supervision as often as the provider planned. Staff said they felt supported, but records did not always show how their needs were discussed and acted on.
“Not all staff received structured documented supervision in accordance with the provider and interim manager's expectations.” from the report
Medicine fridge guidance
minorMedicine storage temperature guidance had not always been followed. The head of care acted immediately, and inspectors said the fridge was not being used and no medicines were stored in it at the time.
“However we found these guidelines had not always been followed.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThe home did not have a registered manager when inspectors visited. An interim manager was running the service while the provider recruited a manager who was expected to register with CQC.
“The home did not have a current registered manager, however was in the process of appointing a new manager.” from the report
- 01Who is currently managing the home, and has the new manager registered with CQC?
- 02How are care plans for people living with dementia now checked to make sure their views and best-interest decisions are recorded?
- 03How often does each staff member receive documented supervision, and how is this monitored?
- 04How are medicine storage temperatures checked and recorded now?
- 05How are people's views used to improve the food menu and activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions; the previous focused inspection in March 2017 had looked specifically at medicines. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 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 Wisma Mulia
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2010.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.