CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wollaton Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, staffing, infection control and management problems.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 28 and 29 November 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
They found people were at risk from poor infection control, unsafe equipment, faulty call bells, gaps in risk assessments and too few staff in some areas. Some staff did not have all the training needed for people's health needs. Care records did not always give staff clear guidance.
There were also serious weaknesses in how the home was managed. The provider had not identified or acted on repeated problems, including incidents, safeguarding concerns, staffing, the environment and infection control. The overall rating fell from Good in 2019 to Inadequate.
The home is in special measures. CQC will keep it under review, ask for an action plan and work with the local authority to monitor progress. If significant improvements are not made, CQC says it may take action to prevent the provider from operating the home.
Kind staff interactions
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff being kind. Inspectors also observed warm and positive interactions during the visit.
“People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring. We observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service during the inspection.” from the report
Some medicine procedures
Inspectors found that most medicine administration, controlled drug storage and staff competency checks were being managed safely.
“Medicines were received, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Access to healthcare
The home arranged visits and support from healthcare professionals, including GPs, dentists, opticians and dieticians.
“The provider ensured the service worked effectively within and across organisations to deliver effective care, support and treatment.” from the report
Staff support from the manager
Staff gave positive feedback about the registered manager and said they could approach them for support.
“The registered manager is so approachable, you can go to them about anything, they take the time to talk to people.” from the report
Poor infection control and environment
seriousSome rooms and equipment were unhygienic, worn or difficult to clean. Inspectors said this exposed people, relatives and visitors to infection risks.
“Areas of the home were in a state of disrepair meaning it could not be cleaned effectively.” from the report
Risks were not managed
seriousCare plans and risk assessments did not always protect people from falls, choking or behaviours that could harm themselves or others. A faulty call bell left one person without a way to call for help.
“This lack of action by the provider left people at risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousStaffing levels and deployment were not always enough to supervise people or meet their needs. Inspectors also found gaps in recruitment checks.
“The provider did not always ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Care was not always person-centred
seriousSome people's needs were not properly assessed or updated. One person did not have an effective seizure care plan after suffering a serious injury.
“The provider failed to ensure people's needs were assessed and care was delivered in a person-centred way.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's checks did not identify or solve important problems. Safeguarding referrals and information sharing were also not always completed.
“The provider did not monitor the quality of care provided in order to drive improvements.” from the report
Limited visits and activities
needs fixingVisitors could not always visit when they wished, and relatives were restricted from communal areas. There were no structured activities when the activity co-ordinator was absent.
“Insufficient systems were in place to enable people to receive visitors when they wished.” from the report
- 01What has been done to remove the infection risks, clean the home properly and replace worn or soiled equipment?
- 02Are all call bells now working, and what are the current response times, especially during busy periods?
- 03How many staff are on duty in each area, and how do you check that staffing meets each person's needs?
- 04Have every person's risk assessments and care plans been reviewed, including plans for choking, falls, seizures and behaviours that may put people at risk?
- 05What evidence can you show that the action plan is being followed and that improvements are being checked over time?
This was an unannounced full inspection of the home, with ratings given for Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 2024 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 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in communication, audits and fire-drill records, so well-led was Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 March 2019. The inspectors spoke with people living in the home, visitors, a relative and staff. They observed care, checked care plans and medicines records, and reviewed the home's management documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines management, kind care, support with food and healthcare, personalised activities and opportunities for people and relatives to raise concerns.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Communication between staff was not always reliable. A minor skin injury had not been recorded or passed on to staff, and quality checks did not consistently identify or address shortfalls.
The overall Good rating means the home was meeting the expected standard in most areas at the inspection. It does not remove the need to ask how the management team has improved communication, quality checks and fire safety monitoring.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, recorded and given correctly. Staff were trained and their competence was reviewed.
“We saw that staff followed and were familiar with processes for the safe receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff positively, and inspectors saw staff speaking kindly, showing patience and respecting privacy and dignity.
“We saw that staff spoke kindly with people and were polite to them.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Staff knew people's histories and preferences. People could choose activities, follow their beliefs and use different ways to communicate.
“People were supported by staff who knew them and understood what was important to them.” from the report
Good support with health and nutrition
People were offered meal choices and plentiful drinks. Staff worked with healthcare professionals when people needed additional support.
“People were offered a choice of meals and plentiful drinks throughout the day.” from the report
Important information was not always shared
seriousA minor skin injury was not recorded in the care plan or handover information. Managers did not know about it until inspectors raised it.
“The registered manager and the care coordinator were unaware of the injury until we highlighted it to them.” from the report
Quality checks were not effective enough
needs fixingAudits were in place but did not always identify patterns or lead to improvements. A monthly care-plan audit had not been completed since December 2018.
“There was no information to show how the monitoring was used to improve the quality and safety of care.” from the report
Fire-drill records
seriousA fire officer had identified a lack of regular fire drills. Although the manager said the required action had been completed, there was no action plan and only one drill was recorded in the previous year.
“We noted that only one fire drill had been recorded in the past year.” from the report
Limited information about feedback
minorThe home collected satisfaction surveys but did not provide a detailed breakdown or display what action had been taken in response to comments.
“There was no information displayed in the home to show what actions had been taken in response to comments received.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure injuries and other important information are recorded and shared with every relevant member of staff?
- 02How do you now use audits to identify patterns in falls and other risks, and what improvements have resulted?
- 03How often are fire drills carried out now, and can you show the current fire-safety action plan and drill records?
- 04Has the monthly care-plan audit restarted, and how do you check that care plans match the care people receive?
- 05How do you tell residents and relatives what action has been taken after satisfaction surveys and meetings?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home's premises; the previous overall rating was Good in September 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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.
Every inspection of Wollaton Park Care Home
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- February 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 June 2012.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham
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 £1,270 a week. 73 can care for a couple. 11 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.