CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wrekin Villa
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found appropriate risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines arrangements and suitable infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reflected in person-centred care plans. Staff were well trained and worked with health and social care professionals to support good outcomes.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, and staff promoted individuality, privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was tailored to people's needs, preferences and goals. People could take part in activities, raise concerns and use a complaints process if needed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had approachable management, quality checks and systems for learning from incidents. People and staff were asked for their views and the home worked with other professionals.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with strong support for people's independence.
This was a scheduled inspection on 25 April 2019. One inspector visited the home, spoke with two people, three relatives, staff, the manager and health and social care professionals. Records and information about the service were also reviewed.
The home was supporting five people with mental health care needs. Inspectors found that people felt safe and that staff understood their needs. Medicines, risks, staffing and infection control were managed appropriately.
Care was personalised and people were involved in decisions about their support. Staff promoted independence, respected privacy and supported people to take part in community and social activities. The home was rated Good in all five areas and overall. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection in August 2016.
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff understood their needs and treated them kindly. Inspectors saw a strong culture of dignity, respect and support for individuality.
“People told us staff fully understood their needs and were very kind and caring.” from the report
Consistent staffing
There were enough staff to provide flexible support. A consistent core group helped people build positive relationships with staff.
“People had developed very positive working relationships with staff and a core group of consistent staffing enabled this to happen.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in their support plans and risk assessments. Staff used people's life histories, preferences and goals to shape their support.
“Support was personalised, and we saw how people's involvement was central to this.” from the report
Promoting independence
Staff supported people to do things for themselves rather than doing everything for them. People could come and go as they pleased and had their own house keys.
“People told us that staff always promoted their independence by being available for support but not doing things for them.” from the report
Strong management checks
The manager and provider used audits, incident reviews and feedback to monitor safety and quality. The home worked with health and social care professionals.
“Quality checks and audits enabled the registered manager to ensure the service provided effective, safe and responsive care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently involve people in writing and reviewing their support plans and risk assessments?
- 02How do you support people to manage or take their own medicines safely?
- 03How do you maintain consistent staffing and provide flexible support when people's needs change?
- 04What activities and community opportunities are available for someone with my relative's interests and goals?
- 05How are incidents, complaints and audit findings reviewed, and what improvements have been made recently?
This was a scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the home was supporting five people at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines audit improvements identified.
Inspectors visited on 2 August 2016 with 24 hours’ notice. They spoke with three of the five people living there, two relatives, one care professional, the manager and care staff. They also observed daily life and checked selected care, medicines, recruitment, training and quality records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and happy. Staff understood safeguarding, risk management and emergency procedures. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, and medicines records showed medicines had been given as prescribed.
Staff were described as kind and supportive. People were helped to make choices, stay independent, maintain relationships, access health services and take part in work or activities they enjoyed. Complaints were dealt with promptly, and the home was led by a manager who was regarded positively.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors did note that medicines audits had not been entirely effective, and improvements to these checks were identified during the visit.
People felt safe
All three people spoken with said they felt safe. Relatives also expressed confidence in people's safety, and staff understood how to respond to safeguarding concerns.
“All three people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Wrekin Villa.” from the report
Support for independence
People were involved in their risk assessments and were supported to make choices, manage money, use the community and develop everyday skills.
“This style of risk management ensured people were being supported to take risks which in turn helped people to develop independence and to live full and active lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, respecting privacy and dignity, and encouraging people to lead their own care where possible.
“People's privacy and dignity was respected.” from the report
Personalised activities and support
People chose activities linked to their own interests, including sports, eating out and voluntary work. Staff also recognised early signs of changes in people's mental health.
“All of the people we spoke with undertook activities that were of specific interest to them.” from the report
Positive leadership
People, relatives and staff gave consistently positive feedback about the management. The home had systems for reviewing care, incidents and quality.
“We received consistently positive feedback about the registered manager and the registered provider of this service.” from the report
Medicines audits needed improvement
minorMedicines records sampled were correctly completed, but the audits used to check medicines management were not fully effective. The manager identified improvements during the inspection.
“These audits had not been entirely effective and the registered manager identified ways these could be improved during our inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to medicines audits after inspectors found they were not entirely effective?
- 02Are staff now completing competency checks for medicines administration, and how often are these reviewed?
- 03How are people's current risk assessments and care plans reviewed when their needs or mental health change?
- 04How are people supported to develop independence and choose their own activities today?
- 05What are the current arrangements for responding to emergencies such as a fire?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors spoke with three of the five people living there and sampled selected records rather than every care file. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 October 2016 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 Wrekin Villa
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 November 2011.
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 Telford and Wrekin
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 £1,200 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.