CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Worplesdon View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were assessed with clear guidance for staff. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable recruitment checks and good infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff had suitable training, people had enough to eat and drink, and they received support from healthcare professionals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, friendly and respectful. They knew people as individuals, involved them in daily decisions and supported their independence, faith and contact with family.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people’s needs, preferences and communication methods and were regularly reviewed. People had varied activities, could raise complaints and were supported at the end of life.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- A new manager had made positive changes and quality checks were identifying issues. However, inspectors said more time was needed to show that the new processes were robust and effective over time.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Worplesdon View rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home’s leadership still Required Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with 21 people living at the home, seven relatives and nine staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, suitable training, good access to healthcare and care that respected people’s choices and dignity. People also had activities, could see family and could raise complaints.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. The provider had made positive changes since the previous inspection, including improving quality checks and records. Inspectors said more time was needed to show that these new systems were firmly established and effective.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff said increased staffing meant they could provide care without rushing people.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to keep people safe and support the health and welfare needs of people living at the home.” from the report
Good support with health and nutrition
People had enough to eat and drink, with specialist diets provided. Staff worked with healthcare professionals and responded when people’s health changed.
“People received support to keep them healthy because staff worked effectively with other healthcare services.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
People could take part in a wide range of activities, including exercise, music, games and smaller group sessions.
“People had access to a range of activities, to keep them entertained and stimulate their minds.” from the report
Positive management changes
People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the new manager. Quality checks and records had improved since the previous inspection.
“Regular weekly and monthly checks on the quality of service provision took place and results were actioned to improve the standard of care people received.” from the report
New systems needed time to settle
needs fixingThe home had improved its quality checks, records and management since the previous inspection. Inspectors still wanted evidence that these changes would remain reliable and effective over time.
“The provider now needed time to embed the changes to show they were robust and effective at ensuring people received a good standard of care.” from the report
- 01How have the quality checks and improvement plans been maintained since the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure care records are completed accurately and kept up to date?
- 03What staffing levels are usually provided on each unit, and how often are agency staff used?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
- 05What changes were made after the seven breaches found at the August 2017 inspection?
This unannounced inspection looked at the home’s overall quality and rated all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Requires Improvement, with serious concerns about leadership, staffing, safety and respectful care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 August 2017. Inspectors arrived early because concerns had been raised about staffing, people being woken too early and whether care was safe. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines records and management records.
The inspectors found shortfalls across all five areas. Staffing was not enough in some parts of the home, risks were not always managed properly, and people were not always treated with dignity or respect. Care plans and handovers did not always give staff the information they needed. Complaints were not always recorded or resolved.
Leadership was rated Inadequate. The home did not have effective systems for checking quality, keeping accurate and secure records, involving people and families, or sending all required notifications to the CQC. The provider sent a plan after the inspection, including extra staffing and management support, but these changes had not yet been checked.
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were generally administered, stored and disposed of safely. They identified gaps in recording whether some as-needed medicines had been offered.
“Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely.” from the report
Healthcare access
People could see healthcare professionals when needed. Records showed involvement from GPs, dentists, chiropodists and tissue viability nurses.
“People had access to healthcare services and healthcare professionals were involved in the regular monitoring of their health.” from the report
Activities
People had access to activities inside and outside the home. Inspectors saw music, singing, dancing, games and a group crossword.
“People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them.” from the report
Recruitment and safeguarding
The home carried out relevant checks before staff started work. Staff understood how to respond to suspected abuse.
“People were protected from being cared for by unsuitable staff because robust recruitment was in place.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousSome units did not have enough staff during the day or night. One care worker was left alone on a floor caring for 25 people, and other people waited for help with meals and drinks.
“There were not enough staff at the service to support people's needs in parts of the service.” from the report
Risk management
seriousSome call bells could not be reached, falls records and risk assessments were not always updated, and actions to prevent repeat incidents were not consistently recorded.
“People were not always protected from risks in a consistent way.” from the report
Dignity and personal care
seriousInspectors found incomplete personal care records and saw people being woken without choice, left waiting for drinks, or not treated respectfully.
“Staff did not always treat people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousThe home's checks did not reliably identify or fix known problems. Records were incomplete, some care and medicines areas were left unsecured, and required CQC notifications were missed.
“The provider did not always have systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service the service provided.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are now in place on each unit during the day and at night, especially the dementia unit?
- 02How do you make sure call bells are reachable and that falls, accidents and other incidents lead to updated risk assessments?
- 03What dementia training and clinical supervision have nurses and care staff completed since this inspection?
- 04How do you now check that personal care, food and fluid records and care plans are complete and accurate?
- 05How are verbal complaints recorded, investigated and followed up with families?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions, after concerns were raised about staffing and safe care; the previous inspection in November 2016 had found no breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 2017 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Worplesdon View
3 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 August 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.