CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wyndham House Care
Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the home performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good overall; a focused inspection found safe care and strong management systems.
Inspectors visited on 23 and 27 April 2021 without giving advance notice. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked records, including medicines, care plans, recruitment and management checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that staff understood people's risks, staffing levels met people's needs, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were in place.
The inspection was prompted partly by concerns about people's care, but inspectors found no areas of concern in the other key questions. Those areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used for the overall rating.
Individual risk management
People had individual risk assessments and staff understood how to reduce known risks, including choking and falls.
“People had individual risk assessments. Staff were aware of people's individual risks.” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs in a timely way. Recruitment checks were also being completed.
“There were enough staff on the day of inspection to support people's care needs in a timely manner.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines records were accurate and storage was suitable. Staff had training, competency checks and regular audits.
“Staff kept accurate records of all medicines ordered, administered and disposed of.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely and had arrangements for preventing and managing infections.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits, walk-arounds and action plans to monitor the service and track improvements.
“Systems were in place for reviewing all areas of the service and this was included in the service development plan.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no manager registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection. The manager was in the process of registering, while the provider remained legally responsible for the service.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's registration with the CQC now been completed?
- 02How are individual risks, including choking, falls and skin problems, assessed and reviewed?
- 03How do you check that medicines records remain accurate and that staff remain competent to administer medicines?
- 04What infection prevention measures are currently in place for visitors, staff and new admissions?
- 05How are complaints, incidents and audits used to make further improvements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 May 2021 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, July 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but personalised care and records were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 June 2019. Inspectors observed care, spoke with five people, three relatives and five staff, and checked care plans, medicines records, training information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, caring and leadership. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, good health support and respectful care. People and relatives were generally positive about the service.
The Responsive rating was Requires Improvement. Care plans needed updating, records did not always show that planned care had been provided, and inspectors saw two occasions where staff did not respond promptly to people's needs.
The overall rating remained Good, as four of the five areas were Good. However, the Responsive rating had fallen from Good at the previous inspection, published on 19 January 2018.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, supported their choices and respected their privacy, dignity and independence.
“People's views were respected, and they were involved in everything that happened in the service.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Medicines were administered and stored safely. Records matched a random stock check, and staff had training and competency checks.
“A random stock check of medication found these tallied with the records of administration.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found staffing levels met people's assessed needs. Staff had training in areas including dementia, medicines and mental capacity.
“Staff had received training to support people using the service and more specialist training in matters such as dementia, medicines and mental capacity.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered activities such as games, music, exercises, entertainers and outings, with activities based on people's interests.
“Activities included games, films, music, reminiscence, exercises, visiting entertainers and outings.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
needs fixingCare plans were not always current or easy to use. Records did not always show that planned care, including turning, had been provided.
“Care records were not always completed and maintained fully to evidence the care and support people had received.” from the report
Care was not always personalised
needs fixingInspectors saw one person distressed and another asleep over lunch. On both occasions, the inspector had to intervene before staff took appropriate action.
“People did not always receive personalised care.” from the report
Some risk assessments needed updating
minorTwo people's risk assessments were out of date. The manager had a plan to review all risk assessments.
“We did however note that two people's risk assessments required updating.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to care plans since the inspection, and how are they kept up to date?
- 02How do you check that staff provide and record care such as turning people in line with their care plans?
- 03What has been done to make sure staff notice and respond quickly when someone is distressed or falls asleep while eating?
- 04Have the two risk assessments identified by inspectors now been reviewed?
- 05How are activities matched to each person's needs and interests?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole care home, covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 July 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 Wyndham House Care
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 April 2013.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.