CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Margaret Rose Care
Warberries Nursing Home
Lower Warberry Road, Torquay, TQ1 1QS
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Warberries Nursing Home is rated Requires Improvement and remains in special measures; inspectors found caring staff but serious gaps in safety checks and management oversight.
Inspectors visited on 21 and 23 November 2023, including an unannounced visit. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, training, recruitment, rotas and quality checks.
Some risks were not managed safely. Records did not always show that staff followed health advice, checked blood glucose, gave supplements or used the correct choking guidance. There were also medicine stock discrepancies and delays in responding to constipation. The home made immediate referrals and changes when inspectors raised concerns.
People were treated with kindness and respect. There were enough staff, people could have visitors, and staff understood people's needs. However, systems for checking the quality and safety of care were still not reliable enough.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring was rated Good. The home is no longer rated Inadequate, but it remains in special measures because of persistent breaches.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions. People said staff were caring and respectful, and their privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“People were well supported, and their privacy, dignity and independence was promoted.” from the report
Enough staff
Rotas showed that the home's assessed staffing levels were met. Inspectors saw high numbers of staff, and most people and families said help was available.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Improved involvement and activities
People and families were asked for their views, and the home added an activity coordinator after people asked for more activities.
“Changes were made as a result of issues raised at residents meetings.” from the report
Some progress since the last inspection
The home was no longer in breach of regulations covering dignity, safeguarding, staff training, confidentiality, incident monitoring and notifications to CQC.
“At this inspection, we found that although some improvements had been made, and they were no longer in breach of regulation 10 or 18” from the report
Open working with other professionals
The home sought advice from health and social care professionals and inspectors found a positive and open culture.
“The provider worked in partnership with others.” from the report
Health risks were not consistently managed
seriousCare records did not always show that staff followed professional advice or completed important monitoring. This included risks linked to tube feeding, diabetes, choking, nutrition and catheters.
“Risks to people were not always monitored and managed in a safe way, particularly risks associated with people's specific health needs.” from the report
Medicines stock checks were unreliable
seriousInspectors found discrepancies in medicine stock levels, including for an antipsychotic medicine. The home could not always show that medicines were being managed safely.
“We found discrepancies in medicine stock levels, including for an anti-psychotic medication, which put people at risk of harm.” from the report
Care plans were incomplete or contradictory
seriousSome care plans lacked enough detail for staff to respond consistently. Records also sometimes gave conflicting instructions about modified food and drink, increasing the risk of choking.
“Risk assessments were in place for people at risk of choking. However, records were sometimes contradictory about the level of modified diet required.” from the report
Quality checks did not find problems
seriousThe home's governance systems did not reliably identify problems in care records, medicines, care plans or the updating of professional advice.
“Although there had been improvements since our last inspection, the provider's systems did not always effectively monitor the quality of care provided to drive improvements.” from the report
Some families were not involved in care planning
minorMost relatives said they were involved and kept informed, but two relatives said they had not been asked about their family member's care plan.
“However, 2 relatives told us they had not been asked about their family member's care plan.” from the report
- 01What have you changed to make sure staff follow professional advice in care plans, including advice about tube feeding and other complex health needs?
- 02How do you now check medicine stock levels and investigate discrepancies?
- 03How do you make sure choking risk assessments and modified food and drink instructions are accurate and consistent?
- 04How do you check that staff record blood glucose checks, nutritional supplements and action taken when people become constipated?
- 05What action has been taken after the warning notice, and what evidence can you show of progress before the next CQC inspection?
This inspection examined concerns about an alleged abuse incident and reviewed Safe, Caring and Well-led; Effective and Responsive were not separately rated in the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Warberries Nursing Home
7 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2022Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2022Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.