Wrenbury Nursing Home

Overall, people told us they felt safe living at the home. The provider had a safeguarding policy and procedure in place. Staff undertook relevant training and were aware of their duty to identify and report any safeguarding concerns.

Staff assessed potential risks to people and took actions to mitigate risk. However, some records relating to risk management required additional information to help guide staff. Where actions had been agreed to help mitigate risks, staff needed to ensure these were robustly followed. The provider employed a maintenance person who undertook various checks to maintain the safety of the environment.

There were sufficient and consistent staff, who were knowledgeable about people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely and were supported through training and supervision.

The provider was working on an action plan following an external Infection prevention and control (IPC) audit, which had identified some areas for improvement. Several actions had been completed, and a refurbishment of the laundry was due to commence.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff monitored people’s outcomes, which supported timely involvement of health partners and led to improvements. They worked effectively and maintained positive relationships with external professionals. A visiting health care professional provided positive feedback about the approach the service took towards joint working.

Each person had a care plan which contained individualised information about their care needs. However, we saw some inconsistency, and some plans would benefit from further details. Feedback indicated staff considered people’s wishes about their preferred place of care and supported people to stay at the home wherever possible.

Staff considered people’s views and wishes, and their consent was recorded in their care plans. Where people lacked the capacity to make certain decisions, the provider worked in line with The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)

The registered manager cared about and supported staff well-being. They had been in post for several years and provided visible and experienced leadership.

The provider had governance systems in place to check the quality and safety of the service, but they were not always fully effective, we found some minor gaps which the provider had not previously identified. However, they had an ongoing improvement plan in progress with several actions already completed. The registered manager was responsive during the assessment and took some immediate actions in response to our feedback.