CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wrottesley Park House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care but safety needed improvement because of medicines records, storage and night staffing.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 12 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, complaints, staffing, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because medicines records and storage were not always managed properly, and people said they sometimes waited too long for help at night.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and was in breach of Regulation 17. The warning notice from that inspection had been acted on, and the home was no longer in breach at this inspection.
Kind relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff took time to understand people's histories, preferences and diverse needs.
“People and relatives told us they found staff to be caring and helpful.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training for people's specific conditions and felt equipped to support them. Inspectors observed safe and reassuring support with mobility.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans explained how people communicated, and staff used picture cards, electronic systems and adapted questions to help people make choices.
“People's individual communication needs were assessed and guidance to support their communication was available for staff.” from the report
Improved management
The management team had improved audits, care planning and oversight since the previous inspection. Leaders were open about problems and acted on feedback.
“Improvements had also been made to auditing systems which enabled more effective oversight of areas of concern.” from the report
Medicines storage and records
seriousSome medicines were kept on open counter tops rather than in locked cupboards. Some records also lacked a second signature required by the home's own procedures.
“Some medicines were stored on counter tops, and not within locked cupboards.” from the report
Night-time staffing
seriousPeople said there were not always enough staff at night and that they sometimes waited for care. The manager added staff to the early-hours rota after the inspection.
“People consistently told us there were not enough staff to support them at night.” from the report
Activities were not always regular
needs fixingThe activities programme had improved, but feedback was mixed and some people still had limited opportunities for meaningful occupation.
“There isn't often activities on, every 2-3 weeks we might play a game.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now stored, and has the treatment room flooring been replaced?
- 02How do you check that all medicines requiring two signatures have complete records?
- 03What are the current staffing levels overnight, and how do you check that people are helped promptly?
- 04What regular activities are now available for people who want more stimulation or meaningful occupation?
- 05How are complaints reviewed and followed up when someone is unhappy with the response?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and checked whether improvements required after the previous inspection had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found some safe, respectful care, but medicines, activities, consent and management systems needed urgent improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 10 December 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, a relative, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicine, staff and quality records. There were 35 people living at the home, which can support up to 63 people.
The home was rated Requires Improvement in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally felt safe, had their nutritional and healthcare needs met, and were supported with privacy, dignity and day-to-day choices.
However, some medicines were not given or recorded as prescribed. Staff did not always seek consent, provide enough specialist support, engage with people or offer suitable activities. Care reviews did not show the involvement of people or relatives, and management changes and weak audits meant problems were not consistently found or fixed.
The provider was in breach of Regulation 17 on good governance and received a warning notice. There had been no registered manager since April 2018. The home had also been rated Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, with some of the same problems still present.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Individual risks were assessed and staff knew how to reduce them.
“People told us they felt safe. Individual risks to people were assessed and staff knew how to minimise them.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People's nutritional needs were met and they could access healthcare professionals when needed.
“People were happy with the food and drink provided and people's nutritional needs were met.” from the report
Privacy and independence
People were supported to make day-to-day choices, maintain their privacy and dignity, and remain as independent as possible.
“People were supported to maintain their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Complaints and feedback
People knew how to raise concerns. The home sought feedback through residents' meetings and acted on some requests.
“People's feedback was sought via residents meeting and actions were implemented as a result.” from the report
Medicines
seriousSome medicines were not given or recorded as prescribed. Problems included skin patches, creams, missed eye drops and medicines given through a stomach tube.
“People did not always receive their medication as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and stimulation
needs fixingSome people who did not join group activities were left without stimulation for much of the day. An action plan had not yet been put into practice.
“People were not encouraged and supported to follow their individual interests and people were left for long periods without stimulation.” from the report
Consent and specialist training
seriousStaff sometimes supported people without first seeking consent. Some staff also lacked in-depth knowledge of particular health conditions.
“People's consent was not always sought before providing support.” from the report
Management and audits
seriousThere was no registered manager in post since April 2018. The home's checks did not find several problems identified by inspectors.
“The provider's governance systems had failed to identify shortfalls and therefore were ineffective in driving improvement.” from the report
Choice and inclusion
needs fixingInspectors found the home was not designed and run in line with guidance promoting choice, independence and inclusion for people with learning disabilities and autism.
“The care service had not been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01What checks now confirm that every medicine, cream and skin patch is given and recorded as prescribed?
- 02What written instructions and staff training are in place for medicines given through a stomach tube?
- 03How are people who do not join group activities supported to have regular individual interests and stimulation?
- 04How do you record the person's and relatives' involvement in care plan reviews?
- 05Who is currently responsible for the home, and how are audit findings checked to make sure earlier problems have been fixed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, using observations, discussions with people and staff, and checks of care, medicine, staff and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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.
Every inspection of Wrottesley Park House Care Home
6 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Wrottesley Park House Care Home →
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Wrottesley Park House Care Home →
- September 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 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 Wolverhampton
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 9 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.”
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.