CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wrenbury Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 27 November 2020. It was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control because of the CQC's response to coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found that visitors were screened, given masks and had access to protective equipment and handwashing facilities. The home was very clean and hygienic, staff used protective equipment correctly, and people and staff took part in regular COVID-19 testing.
Relatives spoke positively about communication during the pandemic, including video calls and planned garden visits. People had individual COVID-19 risk assessments, and staff had training for their roles and for managing COVID-19.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall rating or full ratings for the five areas of care. Safe was also inspected but not rated.
Communication with relatives
Relatives described communication during the pandemic as very good. The home also supported video calls and had previously arranged planned garden visits.
“Communication is excellent. The staff are proactive keeping me up to date about [Name]” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors completed health screening, had their temperature checked and were given masks. Protective equipment, handwashing facilities and hand sanitiser were available.
“All visitors were asked to complete a health screening form, have their temperature checked and were provided with face masks to wear throughout their visit.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had increased its cleaning schedules and routines to reduce the risk of cross infection. Inspectors found the environment very clean and hygienic.
“The service had increased the cleaning schedules and routines to reduce the risks of cross infection.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
Staff were observed using the correct protective equipment. People and staff were taking part in regular COVID-19 testing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Individual risk assessments
People had individual risk assessments covering their specific COVID-19 needs. Staff had training for their roles and for managing COVID-19.
“People had individual risk assessments in place that reflected their specific needs in relation to COVID19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors screened and supported with masks, protective equipment, handwashing and hand sanitiser now?
- 02How often are people and staff tested, and what happens if a test is positive?
- 03How are individual infection risk assessments updated when a person's needs change?
- 04How can relatives keep in contact through visits, garden visits or video calls?
- 05What ratings or inspection information is available for the areas not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good overall, but the home Requires Improvement for safety because risk management and some records were not always reliable.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 20 December 2017 and 4 January 2018. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They looked at care records, medicines, staffing, training, premises and management systems.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found enough staff, kind and respectful care, personalised support, suitable activities and effective management. The home was clean and people's health, food and hydration needs were generally supported.
Safety was rated Requires Improvement. Staff did not always follow risk guidance, some wound records were not robust, and there were minor gaps in medicines and safeguarding records. Inspectors also found occasional gaps in Mental Capacity Act knowledge and one incomplete care plan.
The home had improved since the March 2016 inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and breached two regulations. Inspectors found those previous breaches had been addressed at this inspection.
Enough staff
Staffing levels had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors found enough suitably qualified staff to meet people's needs.
“There were sufficient suitably qualified members of staff on duty at all times.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences and supported choices about routines, care and activities. Activities included group and one-to-one support.
“People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Improvement since 2016
The home acted on the two previous breaches. Records and the way staff were deployed had improved.
“At this inspection we found that they had taken action to address the breaches of regulations and the quality of the service had improved.” from the report
Accessible management
The manager was available during the inspection, knew the service well and acted on issues raised.
“The registered manager was proactive and took immediate action with regards to any issues highlighted during the inspection.” from the report
Risk guidance was not always followed
seriousOne person's drink was not thickened to the correct consistency despite a risk assessment. Inspectors also found one case where a choking risk assessment was missing at first.
“Action identified to mitigate risk was not always followed by staff.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingThere were gaps in staff knowledge and one best-interest decision was made without first completing a mental capacity assessment.
“There were some gaps in the staff's knowledge around MCA and the accurate completion of assessments.” from the report
Incomplete care plan
needs fixingOne person's full care plan had not been completed, although a shorter respite plan was in place and the issue was acted on during the inspection.
“We found that one person's care plans had not been fully written.” from the report
Some personal care and complaints information
minorOne person's nails needed cleaning. Some people also did not know how to make a complaint, although they said they could raise concerns with staff.
“Some people commented that they did not know how to make a complaint, but did not feel that they had had cause to do so.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that thickened drinks are prepared to the correct consistency for each person?
- 02How are wound reviews and redressing dates recorded and checked, including when agency staff are working?
- 03How do you check that medicines administration records, cream charts and as-required medicine instructions are complete?
- 04How do you make sure Mental Capacity Act assessments and best-interest decisions are completed in the correct order?
- 05How will you ensure every person's care plan is complete and that actions from care plan audits are followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall service; it included care records, medicines, staffing, premises, care observations and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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.
Every inspection of Wrenbury Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 May 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 Cheshire East
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“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.