You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 March 2018

Wellington Grange is a care home that provides nursing care. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or 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. Wellington Grange provides accommodation and support for up to 72 people. Accommodation is arranged over three floors with those who require nursing care on the second floor. There are three passenger lifts linking each floor and the home has an attractive accessible garden.

The inspection was conducted over three days, 19 and 20 September 2017 and later on 12 December 2017. A third date was arranged with the provider as due to unforeseen circumstances, the inspector was not able to complete the report. A third day of inspection was needed to ensure completeness of information for this inspection report. Information gathered on 12 December provided the basis for this report but some information from the previous days was also considered. On 12 December 2017 there were 57 people living at the home.

The home had a registered manager who was present throughout the inspection on 12 December 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

The home was registered with CQC in March 2016 and this was the first inspection of the home.

Staffing levels in the home had been increased in recent months. However, staff were not always being deployed effectively in some areas of the home. People told us that they sometimes had to wait longer than they should expect to have their needs met. People’s comments included, “There’s a lack of carers,” and “Usually they are quick but sometimes it’s a long, long wait in the night.” We identified the deployment of staff as an area of practice that needed to improve.

People told us they felt safe living at Wellington Grange, one person said, “I am definitely safe here because of the staff.” Risks to people were assessed and managed and staff demonstrated a firm understanding of their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding people. Incidents and accidents were monitored and actions were taken to reduce the risk of a reoccurrence. People were receiving their prescribed medicines safely and were supported to manage their own medicines where appropriate. There were robust arrangements in place to ensure that the environment was well maintained and risks of infection were effectively managed.

People’s needs had been assessed using a number of validated tools. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect the care provided. People told us they had confidence in the skills and knowledge of the staff. One person said, “The staff are very well trained and know exactly what to do.” Another person said, “The quality of the staff here is excellent.” The provider had robust recruitment procedures and staff told us that new staff received a comprehensive induction when they joined the team. Staff received the training and support they needed to be effective in their roles. One staff member said, “I have done a lot of training and it has all been helpful.” Records showed that staff had received training in subjects that were relevant to the people they were caring for.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the food available at the home. There were a number of different dining areas and people said that they were offered plenty of choice. One person told us, “The kitchen does well, the food is good.” We observed that people had a pleasant meal time experience and staff were supporting people to make sure they had enough to eat and drink. Specific risks and nutritional needs were identified and monitore

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 4 March 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

There were enough staff to care for people safely but deployment of staff meant that some people were waiting longer than they should expect for their care needs to be met. The provider had robust recruitment systems.

Risks to people were assessed and managed effectively. Infection control measures were in place. People were supported to take positive risks to retain their independence.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff had a clear understanding of their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding people. Incidents and accidents were monitored and used to make improvements in the service.



Updated 4 March 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who received the training and support they needed. Staff communicated effectively and people were supported to access the health care services they needed.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Their needs were met by the adaptation and design of the building.

Staff understood their responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People�s needs had been assessed holistically and their preferences were considered.



Updated 4 March 2018

The service was caring.

Staff knew people well and had developed positive relationships with them.

People were treated with kindness and their dignity and privacy was protected.

People were supported to express their views about their care and support.



Updated 4 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care was personalised and staff were responsive to changes in people�s needs.

People were supported to follow their interests with a wide range of activities and with individual support.

People knew how to complain and felt confident their concerns would be acted upon.



Updated 4 March 2018

The service was well- led.

There were effective management systems in place to monitor quality and drive improvements. People and staff were involved in developing the service.

The provider�s values were understood and embedded within staff practice. There was visible leadership and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

Staff had made links within the local community and staff had developed positive working relationships with partner agencies.