Wellesley House Nursing Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Our rating for this key question remains requires improvement. The service was not well-led. We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations. There were no systems in place to ensure people received the safe care they needed. The systems in place to monitor and improve the home were not effective.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Leaders spoke about the direction and culture of the home; they shared their vision for the future of the home. Staff we spoke with raised no concerns to us, however they were not always able to show they were aware of the values of the organisation.

The lack of oversight of people’s care meant people did not always receive a good standard of care and support from staff who were adequately trained or competent. This meant we could not be assured staff were aware of the direction and culture of the home.

All staff we spoke with were happy with the support they received and the management of the home.

Although there were nurses employed, there was a lack of clinical oversight in the home which placed people at risk of not receiving clinical support when needed. For example, in relation to the management of people’s diabetes. However, there were systems in place to ensure care staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

Leaders and staff told us there were whistle-blowing procedures in place and felt confident to follow these processes if needed. Leaders told us staff were encouraged to share and raise concerns.

There was a whistle-blowing procedure in place and staff were encouraged to speak up when needed.

Leaders and staff spoke about equality and inclusion. The staff we spoke with raised no concerns to us.

There were processes in place to consider staffs individual needs to ensure they were not treated in a discriminatory way.

Leaders told us they had started to identify concerns with the provision of care. However, they confirmed there were no action plans in place for this. They confirmed they were not aware of or had actioned the concerns we identified during our site visit for example, that there were no suitable window restrictors and exposed radiators.

Audits and checks in place were not effective. There was no audit that identified concerns around ineffective medicine management. The health and safety and IPC audit had not identified concerns with the environment. There was no audit taking place which identified care plans and risk assessments were not in place or reflective of people’s needs. There was no system in place to ensure unexplained bruising was identified. This placed people at risk of potential harm.

People and relatives stated the home worked with other agencies and professionals to ensure their needs were met. A relative told us, “The chiropodist and hairdresser come in”.

Both leaders and staff stated they worked in partnership with other agencies to deliver care to people.

As part of this assessment, we asked for feedback from the local authority and the integrated care board. They told us they had recently visited Wellesley House Nursing Home Limited and found concerns, including that drinking beakers with spouts were widely used which were not prescribed for people by speech and language.

There were no effective systems in place to ensure they worked in partnership with other agencies, as there was a lack of up-to-date information and oversight of people’s care. When changes occurred, information was not always documented. There was no review of care notes to ensure feedback from partners was followed.

Leaders told us about some of the improvements they had made at the service and described how they had recognised some areas of the home that needed improving. However, they were unable to provide an action plan that detailed any of these planned improvements to the safety and quality of care. This meant there was a risk that planned improvements would not be made in a timely manner and improvement progress could not be effectively tracked. Staff were not always aware of or able to share with us how they were involved with any learning.

The were no effective systems in place that ensured concerns were consistently identified and acted on. This meant learning, improvement and innovation were not always promoted. The required improvements from our last inspection had not all been made and the provider remained in breach of 1 regulation and additional breaches of regulation were identified.