CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wisteria House Residential Home - Rutland
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Wisteria House Residential Home - Rutland was rated Good overall, but inspectors found safety improvements were still needed with some mobility support.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 16 May 2019. They spoke with people living there, visitors, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines records, accident records, complaints and other management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because staff used unsafe techniques when helping some people to move, and the risks had not been assessed or explained.
The home had enough staff, managed medicines safely and provided kind, personalised care. It had improved since the previous inspection, which had been rated Requires Improvement and found two breaches. At this inspection, the home was no longer in breach.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. The home did not use temporary staff, and managers covered staff absences.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff took time to support people without rushing them.
“People told us staff took their time when they provided support to them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and choices. People were supported to enjoy activities and maintain relationships with family and friends.
“The care and support people received was tailored to their individual needs.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Staff followed safe processes for storing, giving and recording medicines. Managers regularly checked medicines records.
“People's medicines were managed and administered safely.” from the report
Improved management
The provider had acted on problems found at the previous inspection. The home was no longer in breach of the regulations at this inspection.
“At this inspection we saw improvements had been made.” from the report
Unsafe mobility techniques
seriousInspectors saw staff using techniques they considered unsafe when helping people with mobility. The risks had not been assessed or explained, so people did not have the information needed to make decisions about them.
“We saw there were no records to show the risks associated with these mobilising techniques had been assessed and explained to people.” from the report
Care plans lacked some personal history
minorInspectors recommended improving care plans so they included people's personal history. They said this did not affect care because staff knew people well.
“We made recommendations to the registered manager to improve people's care plans in order to reflect people's personal history.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make mobility support safer?
- 02How are the risks of each person's preferred way of moving assessed and recorded?
- 03How are staff trained and checked in the mobility techniques used in this home?
- 04How will you make sure care plans include each person's personal history as well as their current care needs?
- 05How do managers check that improvements from the previous inspection are maintained?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection that looked at the overall service and all five CQC questions, including follow-up of concerns from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 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, April 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care, but health and fire safety risks were not fully controlled.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 28 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and a visiting health professional. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, person-centred care, respectful relationships and support with food, drink and healthcare.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led, making the overall rating Requires Improvement. People could access areas with hot water, hot equipment, cleaning substances and dirty laundry. Fire doors did not close safely, and the home's checks had not identified or dealt with these risks.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on shifts to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“There were enough staff allocated on all shifts to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring and attentive. Staff protected privacy and dignity and supported people at their own pace.
“People were very happy with the care and support they received.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences, communication needs and interests. People and relatives were involved in planning care.
“The care plans were person centred, identifying people's background, preferences, communication and support needs.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Inspectors found that medicines were administered and recorded accurately. Staff followed infection control procedures.
“There were appropriate arrangements in place for the management of medicines.” from the report
Positive staff culture
Staff communicated well and said they were proud to work at the home. People, relatives and health professionals spoke positively about the manager and staff team.
“The service had an open culture where staff had the opportunity to share information; this culture encouraged good communication.” from the report
Access to hazardous areas
seriousPeople, including those living with dementia or confusion, could access the kitchen and laundry. This exposed them to scalding, burns, hazardous substances and infection risks.
“People living with dementia, or people who were experiencing confusion from ill health had access to areas such as the main kitchen and the cellar where the laundry was situated.” from the report
Fire doors
seriousBedroom doors were propped open and were not connected to the fire alarm system. Some doors did not close properly, which could allow fire to spread.
“People could not be assured that their bedroom doors would protect them in the event of a fire as they were not connected to the fire alarm system and they were kept open.” from the report
Health and safety monitoring
seriousThe provider's audits had not identified the risks from the kitchen, laundry, cellar, uncovered radiators or fire doors. The provider had not acted on earlier verbal advice from the fire officer.
“The provider had not ensured there were sufficient processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the health and safety of service users.” from the report
- 01Have locks now been fitted to the kitchen and laundry doors, and how do you stop people accessing these areas?
- 02Have suitable covers been fitted to all radiators, and when was this work completed?
- 03Do all bedroom and kitchen fire doors now close securely and automatically when the fire alarm activates?
- 04What changes have been made to the home's health and safety audits since this inspection?
- 05Can you show us the action taken in response to the two breached regulations?
This was the second comprehensive inspection and looked at the whole service, including accommodation and care, with all five question ratings assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 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 Wisteria House Residential Home - Rutland
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Wisteria House Residential Home - Rutland →
- April 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Wisteria House Residential Home - Rutland →
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Rutland
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 £1,310 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
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.