CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Wyndham Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care plans, staff files, medicines records and other records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, respectful care, personalised support and meaningful activities.
The home had acted on a recommendation from the October 2017 inspection about the Mental Capacity Act and updating records. Inspectors said these improvements had been completed.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored and given safely by trained staff.
“There was enough staff to support people's needs.” from the report
Respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported independence and involved people in decisions about their care.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and interests. People were supported to take part in activities and access the local community.
“People's care plans were detailed and personalised. There was evidence that relatives were invited to participate in care plan reviews with people.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had completed the previous recommendation about applying the Mental Capacity Act and keeping records up to date.
“These improvements have been completed.” from the report
Strong management
Inspectors found effective quality checks, open management and good teamwork. Audits were used to identify and make improvements.
“The registered manager had effective quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific nursing, dementia and personal care needs?
- 02How do you check that medicines continue to be given safely and as prescribed?
- 03How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about care?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How do you monitor staffing levels and respond if people's needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five CQC questions rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but records and decision-making under the Mental Capacity Act needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 September 2017. It followed concerns about people's care, welfare and staffing levels. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, medicines records and management records.
People generally felt safe and received their medicines as prescribed. Inspectors found enough staff on duty during the visit, safe recruitment checks, kind and respectful staff, personalised care plans, suitable food and drink, and good links with health professionals.
The main weakness was that some records were missing, inaccurate or contradictory. The home did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act when involving people in decisions. The overall rating was Good, but Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with warmth, patience and respect. People were given time to express their wishes and were supported to make choices.
“Staff were very kind, compassionate and respectful and treated people and their relatives with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, interests and communication needs. Staff understood how people wanted to receive their care.
“Care plans were personalised and gave clear guidance for staff on how to support people.” from the report
Safety and medicines
Risks were assessed and managed, including risks linked to moving, choking and pressure damage. Inspectors found that medicines were stored and given safely.
“Risks to people were managed and assessments were in place to reduce the risks and keep people safe.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had access to food and drink that met their needs, including special diets. Health professionals were involved when people needed assessment, treatment or advice.
“Where people had specific dietary requirements this was detailed in their care plan.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager carried out audits and used action plans to address issues. Staff shared information about people's changing needs through meetings and handovers.
“The service had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service.” from the report
Incomplete and conflicting records
needs fixingSome care records were missing information or contained inaccurate and conflicting details. This made it harder to see how decisions about care, medicines and diet had been made.
“Records were not always in place, accurate or up to date.” from the report
Reported delays for help
needs fixingSome people and relatives said they had waited a long time for assistance, and some staff said staffing could be tight. Inspectors found enough staff and prompt call-bell responses during this visit, while the manager said recruitment and staffing were improving.
“I have used it and it depends how many staff are on and I've had to wait up to over an hour but usually its 20 minutes plus” from the report
Activities staffing
minorPeople said the activities coordinator had recently left. The manager was recruiting a replacement, so families may want to check how activities are currently organised.
“People also told us the activities coordinator had recently left.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure care records are complete, accurate and updated when a person's needs change?
- 02How do you assess whether a person can make a particular decision, and how do you record a best-interests decision when they cannot?
- 03What are the usual staffing levels on each shift, and how do you respond when staffing is tight or agency staff are used?
- 04How quickly do staff usually respond to call bells, and how is this monitored?
- 05Who currently organises activities, following the activities coordinator's departure?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five CQC questions, carried out after concerns were raised about care, welfare and staffing levels. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 October 2017 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 Wyndham Hall Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 July 2015.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.