• Care Home
  • Care home

Wolfeton Manor

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

16 East Hill, Charminster, Dorchester, Dorset, DT2 9QL (01305) 262340

Provided and run by:
Wolfeton Manor Healthcare Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 3 September 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

Two inspectors visited the service.

Service and service type

Wolfeton Manor is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection took place on 19 August 2020 and was announced. We announced the inspection the day before we visited to discuss the safety of people, staff and inspectors with reference to the Covid 19 pandemic. The service was included in the thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We asked the service to send us information about ongoing monitoring of safety at the home and about infection control measures related to Covid pandemic. We looked at a recent feedback from quality monitoring reports from the local authority.

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We visited several areas of the home and observed people and staff in those areas. We looked at three people’s care records which included risk assessments, care plans and daily records. We received written feedback from a relative in response to our inspection poster inviting feedback about the service.

We spoke with the registered manager, two operations directors and with five staff, which included an infection control lead as well as care and housekeeping staff. We also looked at a range of records related to environmental risk assessments, accident/incident reports and infection control. We visited a garden area where contractors were undertaking improvement works to check how risks for people using the garden were being minimised.

After the inspection

We sought some infection control advice about aspects of policy and practice we discussed with the service and shared that advice.

Overall inspection


Updated 3 September 2020

Wolfeton Manor provides residential care for up to 31 older people. There were 27 people living in the home at the time of our visit, some of whom were living with dementia.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People felt safe. They were supported by staff with a good understanding of how to safeguard them and how to raise concerns either internally or externally if they suspected harm or abuse. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. A dependency tool was used monthly to ensure that staffing levels continued to match the needs of the people living there. People’s individual risks were assessed and reviewed.

At the previous inspection we found people were not always protected from the risks of falling from a height likely to cause harm as not all windows in the home were restricted. At this inspection we saw that this had been resolved. At the previous inspection we found that some hot water taps did not have temperature regulators, which meant the hot water temperature was not always at a safe level for people. The Health and Safety Executive provides guidance on hot water temperatures in care homes and states hot water above 44 degrees can present a scalding risk to vulnerable people. Again, we saw that his had been resolved. These actions meant that risks to people had been reduced.

The home carried out monthly accident and near miss audits. This included a description of what had happened, the result of the investigation, and follow up action taken. This helped reduce the risk of things happening again.

People had their needs assessed to support their move to the home. This included their care needs and how they preferred to live their lives. People were supported by staff who had received an induction. This involved shadow shifts with more experienced staff and regular competency checks. People were supported to eat a balanced and healthy diet. They were given choice of what to eat and drink and could eat as much or as little as they wanted. Where people required extra support at meal times this was provided in line with guidance from health professionals.

People were supported to attend appointments to maintain their health and well-being. Where people’s health needs changed there was timely contact with relevant health professionals. People were supported by staff who understood the importance of offering choice and support in line with what they needed and wanted.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Where people lacked capacity to make particular decisions they were supported by staff who were trained and worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff consistently demonstrated a kind and caring approach towards people. When people were feeling upset staff knew how to support them emotionally. People’s privacy and dignity was supported at all times. They were given time and space to spend private and uninterrupted time with friends and relatives. People were encouraged to maintain their independence. One relative said that people at the home were “given space to be themselves.”

There was a wide range of activities supported at the home. These supported people to maintain their interests and develop new skills. People were supported to maintain contact with family and friends. Relatives told us they could visit freely and were always made to feel welcome. Staff were aware of people’s different communication needs and provided information in a format that was most beneficial for them. The home managed complaints in line with their policy. People and relatives expressed confidence that when issues were raised they were dealt with in a timely way and to their satisfaction.

There was a positive and open culture at the home where everybody’s views were seen as important. Staff told us they enjoyed working there and felt supported by the management. Their good work was recognised and opportunities provided for personal development. Regular team meetings were held to share information and learning. Annual surveys were used to find out where people, staff and health professionals thought improvements could be made. The home had developed good working relationships with healthcare professionals. This had resulted in pro-active in-reach services from GPs and district nurses that helped to keep people well for longer and prevent unnecessary hospital admissions.

Further information is in the detailed findings below