Wingates Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care, specifically record keeping and care planning.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Overall, people’s care plans we reviewed contained a lack of person centred and background information, such as their likes, dislikes and life histories, which would help staff to better understand people and provide context to how they wanted to be cared for. We also identified some issues with a lack of detail within care records. For example, where people required hoisting, their care plan made no reference to which hoist to use, the type and size of sling, and how to fit this correctly. People’s bathing care plans did not always include their preference, or how often they would like a bath or shower. One person required support to wash, but there was no details on how this support should be provided, what they were able to do for themselves and where assistance may be required.

We looked whether people had any active pressure wounds and noted one person was reported to have a moisture lesion and a category 3 pressure sore. We asked the management about this and was told these wounds had healed. Whilst this was positive, their care plan had not been updated to reflect this, nor was there a wound care plan or body map to evidence the wound, care provided, and improvements made.

We also found some care plans and related documentation to be contradictory. For example, one person’s care records stated they mobilised independently with a Zimmer frame but also required assistance of a carer to mobilise. It was also documented this person needed to be transported in a wheelchair to maintain their safety. As a result, it was unclear what this person’s needs and abilities were.

Upon commencement of the assessment, we found there was no activity schedule on display; though one was created in between our 2 site visits, and limited records were being kept to demonstrate what social, leisure and recreational activities people had been supported to engage in. We asked staff about the activity schedule, and whether people had enough to do to keep them stimulated and engaged. Comments included, “No, we need to up our game on activities. It’s up to staff to do these with people. If we don’t do them between 2pm and 4pm, will try and do something after tea, but often providing care gets in the way of this” and “No I don’t think so. They do some activities but not every day.” People told us some things went on, such as an activity class once a week, but they often spent time watching television, reading or doing puzzles. We were provided with screenshots of the home’s social media page, where photos and information on activities was shared, so relatives could see what people have been up to. Whilst what was captured on there was positive, only 7 activities and 2 events had been documented over the last 13 weeks.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Resident meetings had been held in July and August 2025. During the assessment we saw no evidence any had been held prior to this. However, after the provider’s review of the draft report, they sent us copies of minutes for two other meetings held in March and May 2025. Both people and relatives had attended these. It was not explained why these minutes had not been shared previously. The meetings in March, May and July had been more formal with a set agenda, whereas, in August, people had just been asked if they had anything they wanted to say. We did note at all meetings, people and relatives had the opportunity to raise concerns and/or make requests.

At the meetings held in July and August 2025 we noted people had raised concerns and/or made requests about a number of topics. For example, the quality of the food provided and how fresh this was, wanting a second option at mealtimes, for more activities to be provided and to have the opportunity to access the local community. No evidence was provided to show anything had been done to address these requests or concerns, or that a response had been provided to people. We also noted the provider had not sought people, relative or other visitors views via questionnaires or surveys, to both give them a voice and help drive improvements.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.