CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Worthington Lake Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing, visiting and the management of infection outbreaks. The provider also said it had measures to reduce the risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Worthington Lake Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control and safe visiting arrangements.
Inspectors visited on 24 February 2022. This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. They looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures.
The home had supplies of personal protective equipment, regular testing, increased cleaning and measures to support social distancing. Inspectors said they were assured that infection risks were being managed, including during outbreaks.
Relatives were kept in contact through visiting, outdoor visits, a visiting lodge, phone calls and video calls. The home was following the guidance on visiting and COVID-19 vaccination for staff and professionals.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a full quality rating for the home or ratings for all five areas.
Infection control
The home had regular testing, suitable protective equipment, staff training and increased cleaning. Inspectors were assured that its infection control policy was current.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home maintained contact through several options, including outdoor visits, phone calls and video calls, while indoor visiting was restarted in line with guidance.
“Contact with relatives had been maintained during the pandemic through a variety of means.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What staffing pressures are there now, and how do you make sure they do not affect people’s care?
- 02How do you respond if there is a COVID-19 outbreak in the home?
- 03Are visitors still asked to complete testing and use personal protective equipment?
- 04How can relatives visit if indoor visits are restricted?
- 05How do you keep relatives informed when infection control guidance changes?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 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.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records, training and activity arrangements needing attention.
Inspectors visited on 5 and 11 March 2020. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staff were suitably recruited and care was tailored to people's needs. They saw kind, dignified care and found that managers monitored the quality and safety of care.
There were some shortfalls. Some checks and records were not completed consistently, some training was still being arranged, and people wanted more one-to-one activities. The manager responded to several issues during the inspection, and the report says this was the home's first inspection.
Safe staffing
The home had more staff than expected at the time of the inspection. It did not use agency or bank staff, supporting a regular staff team.
“The provider did not use agency or bank staff and was passionate about people receiving support from a regular, consistent staff team.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
The building had been designed and adapted to support people living with dementia, including clear colour contrasts, suitable lighting and spacious areas.
“Worthington Lake had been specifically designed, adapted and decorated to meet the needs of the people who were living with dementia.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed friendly and compassionate care. People were involved in everyday decisions and their privacy and dignity were respected.
“We observed people receiving kind, compassionate and friendly care.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with health and social care professionals to support people's overall health and wellbeing. The home also employed an in-house occupational therapist.
“Staff worked effectively with other healthcare professionals to ensure people received an holistic level of care and support.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents, incidents and falls were reviewed for patterns. The home used this information to reduce risks and support people more effectively.
“Accidents and incidents were recorded, analysed and trends were identified.” from the report
Some safety checks were inconsistent
needs fixingSome environmental and equipment checks were not completed as regularly as they should have been. There was also no dedicated infection control lead as described in the home's policy.
“some environmental and equipment checks were not completed as regularly as they should have been.” from the report
Training still being completed
minorOverall training was largely compliant, but some courses, including equality and diversity and data protection, still needed attention or were being sourced.
“Training statistics were largely compliant although some areas required attention such as equality and diversity and general data protection regulations.” from the report
Some records needed improvement
needs fixingInspectors found inconsistencies in some care records, and several weight charts were not completed consistently. The issues raised were addressed or being addressed during the inspection.
“Several weight charts were not consistently completed as per risk management tool; the registered manager was responsive to the issues we raised.” from the report
More individual activities needed
minorGroup and individual activities were taking place, but feedback suggested that more one-to-one activities and a clearer activities schedule would be helpful.
“We did receive feedback to suggest that more one to one activities were needed, and an 'activities schedule' would be beneficial.” from the report
End-of-life planning was not yet complete
needs fixingNobody was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection. The home still needed to source end-of-life training and record people's advance wishes and preferences.
“The registered manager was aware that she would need to source end of life training and care records would need to contain people's advanced wishes and preferences.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure environmental and equipment checks are now completed as regularly as required?
- 02Which staff training courses were still outstanding after the inspection, and have they now been completed?
- 03How do you make sure weight charts and care records are completed consistently for every resident?
- 04How many one-to-one activities are available, and how do you match them to each person's interests?
- 05Have end-of-life training and records of people's advance wishes and preferences now been put in place?
This was a first inspection covering all five key questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 2020 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 Worthington Lake Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 March 2019.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Wigan
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 £1,260 a week. 92 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.