CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wykebeck Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found appropriate safeguarding, risk assessment, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control systems. People and relatives said the home was safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare and staff training. Inspectors found appropriate mental capacity assessments and best-interest processes.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, attentive and respectful. Inspectors observed patient interactions and found that people's privacy, dignity, independence and choices were supported.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans contained personalised information and activities were varied, but some plans were not up to date and some consent forms were unsigned.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found organised quality checks, clear improvement actions and an open culture. People, relatives and staff said the service had improved under the newer senior leadership team.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Wykebeck Court Care Home is rated Good overall, but inspectors found care plans were not always up to date and rated responsiveness Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 03 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring care, and for how it was led. People were described as safe, well supported with food and healthcare, treated kindly, and helped to take part in activities.
Responsiveness was rated Requires Improvement. Some care plans did not reflect recent changes in people's health, and some consent forms had not been signed. The inspectors recommended that care plans be updated and reviewed regularly.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, with four breaches. Inspectors found improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Safe medicines
People received their medicines as prescribed. Records, staff training, competency checks and regular audits supported safe medicines management.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. Systems and processes around medicines were safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed kind, patient and attentive interactions. People said staff respected their privacy, dignity and independence.
“During the inspection we observed kind, patient and attentive interactions between staff and people using the service.” from the report
Food and healthcare
The home recorded dietary needs and preferences, offered choices, and supported access to health and social care professionals.
“People's nutritional preferences were recorded and reflected by staff.” from the report
Activities and relationships
Staff planned activities around people's interests and helped people avoid social isolation. Activities took place across the home and included internal and external events.
“There were a range of internal and external activities planned relevant to people's needs and interests.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found clear audits and improvement actions. People, relatives and staff said the culture and management had improved.
“There were clear and well organised systems and processes to monitor and improve the quality of the service” from the report
Care plans not always current
needs fixingSome care plans did not reflect recent changes in people's health, and some consent forms had not been signed. Inspectors recommended regular updating and review.
“Care plans were not always up to date with regards to people's needs and documents were not always signed by people or their representatives as required.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure care plans are updated promptly when a person's health changes?
- 02How do you check that people or their representatives have signed the required consent forms?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative, based on their interests, hobbies and communication needs?
- 04How will you show families that the care plan improvements recommended by inspectors have been completed?
- 05When will the annual survey be issued, and how will feedback from it lead to changes?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five CQC key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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, April 2019
Rated Requires Improvement, with all five areas needing improvement and well-led rated Inadequate.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 and 24 January 2019. Inspectors reviewed records, observed care and spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They looked at the care home, including both the premises and the care provided.
Inspectors found risks around moving safely, staffing levels, pressure ulcer care and staff response times. They also found weaknesses in consent decisions, staff training, personalised care, dignity and activities. Management checks were not strong enough to identify and correct these problems.
There were some positive findings. The home was clean and well maintained. Medicines were stored and managed safely, and people had access to food and drink. However, all five ratings were Requires Improvement, apart from Well-led, which was Inadequate. This was the service's first inspection and rating.
Clean and maintained environment
The home was newly built, clean and tidy. Staff followed infection control procedures.
“The home was newly built and well maintained. The environment was clean and tidy and staff followed infection control protocols to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Medicines checks
Inspectors checked medicines for 23 people and found the recorded balances were correct. Guidance was available for medicines prescribed when needed.
“We checked the quantities and stocks of medicines for 23 people and found all balances to be correct meaning medicines had been given as signed by staff.” from the report
Food and drink
People could access food and drink during the day and at night. Inspectors received positive feedback about the food, and dietary requirements and allergies were managed.
“People had access to food and drink throughout the day and at night and there were effective processes in place for managing dietary requirements and allergies.” from the report
Unsafe staffing levels
seriousThere were not enough staff, or staff were not deployed effectively. Call bells continued to sound and pressure ulcer care and other duties were missed.
“The provider did not employ enough staff or organise staff effectively whilst on duty to meet people's needs and keep people safe and staff told us they often went without breaks and found it difficult to care for people.” from the report
Risks were not controlled
seriousStaff did not always follow care plan guidance about falls and safe movement. The provider did not properly analyse incidents to reduce the risk of them happening again.
“Systems were not in place to prevent people from receiving unsafe care and treatment and prevent avoidable harm or risk of harm.” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousBed rails and sensors were used without always considering whether people could make the decision. Records did not always show that legal requirements had been followed.
“Restrictions had been applied to people without consideration of whether individuals might lack the capacity to make the decision, examples of this included bed rails and assistive technology such as bed sensors.” from the report
Limited personalised care
needs fixingStaff were not required to read care plans and did not always know people's needs and preferences. Activities and mealtime support were not consistently adapted.
“People did not always receive the right support. Staff were not well informed about people's individual needs and preferences and people did not receive personalised care.” from the report
Dignity and interaction
needs fixingInspectors saw little meaningful interaction and found that privacy, dignity and independence were not always protected. Some people waited for support when distressed or needing the toilet.
“People were not consistently treated with kindness and respect. We received mixed feedback from relatives and a visiting healthcare professional about the caring attitude of staff.” from the report
Complaint responses
needs fixingResponses to three complaints did not explain how someone could take further action if they were unhappy with the response. Inspectors recommended reviewing the complaints process.
“Responses to these complaints did not provide any information about how to take action if the person was not satisfied with how the provider had managed and/or responded to their complaint.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing numbers and staff deployment since the inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure staff read and follow each person's care plan, including moving and pressure ulcer care?
- 03How do you assess capacity and record consent before using bed rails, bed sensors or other restrictions?
- 04What extra training have staff received for dementia, end of life care and people's changing needs?
- 05How do you check that complaints receive a full response and explain what further action is available?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; it was the home's first inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 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 Wykebeck Court Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 2018.
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 Leeds
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. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.