CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wollaton View Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good activities, but unsafe medicines and infection control, staffing shortfalls and weak oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 30 October and 1 November 2023. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Inspectors found medicines were not always stored or recorded safely, infection control and laundry practices were poor, and staffing levels and training did not always match people's needs.
There were also positive findings. People spoke highly of the care, staff were kind, activities were varied, complaints were handled appropriately and communication with visiting professionals was good. Responsive was rated Good, improving from Requires Improvement at the last inspection.
The provider breached Regulations 9, 12, 17 and 18. CQC asked for an action plan and said it would work with the provider and local authority to monitor progress.
Kind and caring staff
People spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff using a positive and caring approach.
“The staff are marvellous, really approachable and gentle with me.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities and maintain relationships. Inspectors saw crafts, singing, bowling and preparations for a Halloween party.
“Most people on both floors participated in a wide range of activities to meet their needs and preferences.” from the report
Responsive complaints handling
The home listened and responded to concerns. Most relatives said the manager dealt with complaints appropriately.
“People's concerns and complaints were listened to, responded to and used to improve the quality of care.” from the report
Good professional communication
Visiting professionals gave positive feedback about communication. People were referred promptly when changes in their health or care needs were identified.
“There is great communication between the service and our team.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousA medicines room was left unlocked and unattended. One medicine was given without being recorded at the time, creating a risk of accidental overdose.
“Medicines were not always stored and managed safely.” from the report
Poor infection control
seriousInspectors found insufficient deep cleaning, wrongly used cleaning equipment and soiled laundry stored next to clean laundry. These problems increased the risk of infection and cross-contamination.
“People were not always protected from the risk of infection, as staff were not consistently following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Staffing and training gaps
seriousSome staff had not received training in epilepsy or mental health awareness. Staff numbers and skills did not always match people's needs, especially on the first floor.
“The provider had failed to ensure they had provided sufficient numbers of competent and trained staff, which increased the risk to people's safety.” from the report
Care plans and dignity
seriousCare plans did not always give staff clear guidance for complex needs. Inspectors also found that bedroom doors were left open, affecting people's privacy and dignity.
“The provider had failed to ensure people received care that was appropriate, met their needs and reflected their preferences.” from the report
Weak checks and learning
seriousAudits did not consistently identify problems or show who would fix them and by when. The home also lacked formal staff meetings to share lessons from incidents.
“Systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service were not used effectively to ensure the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report
Restricted visiting times
needs fixingRelatives could only visit at times set by the provider. Inspectors said this reduced flexibility for visitors.
“Relatives could only visit at specific times identified by the provider.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure medicines are locked away, stored correctly and recorded immediately after they are given?
- 02How have you improved deep cleaning, the use of mops and the storage of clean and soiled laundry?
- 03What training have staff now completed for epilepsy, mental health and the complex needs of people in the reablement beds?
- 04How do you now make sure staffing numbers and skills match people's needs, particularly on the first floor?
- 05What action plan is in place to improve audits, protect confidential records and share lessons from incidents?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 December 2023 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, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak, with some guidance to develop further.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak. They also asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found good practice. The home had enough protective equipment, regular cleaning and safe procedures for hand hygiene, testing, visiting and admissions. People, relatives and essential care givers were supported with COVID-19 testing and vaccination.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a standard rating for each of the five areas of care.
Outbreak management
The home had systems to manage a COVID-19 outbreak and staff followed infection control procedures.
“The provider had systems in place to effectively manage an outbreak of COVID-19.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was enough protective equipment for staff, including supplies outside rooms where people were isolating.
“The provider had ensured a sufficient stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) was available to staff.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, with frequent cleaning of areas that people touch often.
“The service was clean with frequent cleaning of high touch areas.” from the report
Testing and vaccination support
People, relatives and essential care givers were supported to take part in COVID-19 testing and vaccination.
“People using the service and their relatives or essential care givers had been supported to participate in the COVID-19 testing and vaccination programme.” from the report
Further guidance needed
minorThe provider was signposted to resources to develop its approach. The registered manager was also directed to current guidance about visiting health professionals and the protective equipment they should wear.
“The Registered Manager was directed to current Government guidance regarding visiting health professionals in care homes and the PPE they are required to wear when working within the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made after being signposted to resources to develop your infection control approach?
- 02How do you check that visiting health professionals follow the current guidance on protective equipment?
- 03How would staffing pressures affect the care and support provided to my relative?
- 04How are visits managed if there is an infection outbreak or someone is isolating?
- 05How are individual COVID-19 risks recorded and kept up to date in care plans?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection of all five areas of care and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 2022 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 View Care Home
2 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 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
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.