- Care home
Wainford House Residential Care Home
Assessment report published 4 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of inspection: 7 October 2026 to 27 October 2026. The service is a care home providing care to up to 28 people. There were 13 people living at the home at the time of this inspection. This inspection was completed to identify if improvements had been made following a previous inspection in September and October 2025.
At our previous inspections in 2025, Wainford House was rated Inadequate and placed in ‘special measures’. At this inspection we found improvements had been made to the day-to-day care people received and the service has been rated Requires Improvement. This means the service is no longer in ‘special measures’. However, further improvement was needed to ensure people consistently received safe care in a well-maintained environment and that governance systems provided effective oversight. The provider remained in breach of Regulations 12 (safe care and treatment), 15 (premises and equipment) and 17 (good governance).
The provider had systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service; however, these were not always effective. Audits and checks had not identified several of the concerns we found, and actions were not always clearly tracked to completion or reviewed to ensure improvements had been sustained. While the provider responded to concerns raised during the assessment, further work was needed to ensure risks and shortfalls were identified proactively, and improvements were embedded and sustained.
However, further improvements were needed. Risks to people were not always effectively assessed or managed, and we identified environmental hazards which had not been recognised through the provider’s own audit and governance systems. Care records were not always accurate or consistent, medicines were not always managed safely, and infection prevention and control practices required improvement. The environment was not consistently safe, comfortable or well maintained.
People did not always have sufficient opportunities to take part in meaningful activities based on their interests, abilities and preferences. Information was not always demonstrated to be accessible to people, and people’s wishes for future and end-of-life care were not consistently recorded. Although staffing levels were sufficient during our visits, recruitment and supervision records did not always demonstrate effective oversight due to gaps in records, including names of the agency staff working.
The provider had made some improvements to staffing arrangements, communication, management support and oversight of people’s care. Staff described improved morale and a more positive culture. People and relatives were generally positive about the service. We observed staff supporting people in a calm and unhurried way, respecting their choices and promoting their independence. Staff were responsive to changes in people’s needs and worked well with healthcare professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives were generally positive about their experience of the service. People told us they felt safe and described staff as kind, respectful and caring. They said staff responded when they needed support and respected their choices about their daily routines, including when they got up and went to bed, where they ate their meals and how they received their care. Relatives were also positive about staff and told us they were approachable, communicated well and kept them informed about their family member’s care.
However, people’s experiences were not consistently positive in all areas. Some people told us there were not always enough staff available to support them with activities or to go out, and some described having limited opportunities for meaningful activity. People who spent more time in their bedrooms or needed additional support to participate were particularly at risk of having fewer opportunities for social engagement.
People also raised concerns about the environment. Some told us the home could be cold and described problems with heating, while the condition and maintenance of parts of the building did not always provide people with comfortable and well-maintained surroundings.
We observed positive interactions between people and staff. Staff provided support in a calm and unhurried way, respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to remain as independent as possible. People were supported to access healthcare when they needed it, and relatives gave examples of staff responding promptly when people’s health needs changed.
Overall, people experienced kind and respectful day-to-day care and generally felt listened to and supported. However, improvements were needed to ensure everyone had consistently positive experiences, particularly in relation to the environment and opportunities for meaningful activity and social engagement.