Date of Assessment: 29 June 2025 to 27 July 2025. The service provides personal care to older people and younger adults. This assessment was in response to CQC receiving information of concern and to follow up on the last inspection. People received support from staff who had been recruited safely and were safeguarded from the risk of abuse by trained staff. There were systems in place to assess risks and plans to reduce them. People had support with their medicines and staff understood how to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were caring and responded to individual needs, supporting people to make choices and retain their independence. People had their communication needs met and received person-centred care. People understood how to make a complaint, and their feedback was sought on the service. The registered manager had a vision for the service and ensured staff were supported and worked in partnership with others. There was a learning culture in the home. However, the provider needed to make some improvements to the service. The provider did not consistently ensure people received their calls at the times they wanted. People did not always feel supported to maintain their health and receive their medicines as prescribed. The registered manager was not consistently clear on their responsibilities and was not always visible to people and their relatives. Staff call times were not always consistent and the governance systems had not identified these concerns.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-9006652069.
Edith Healthcare Wolverhampton was rated Requires Improvement at its first inspection due to weak call-time monitoring, late/inconsistent visits, MAR records not listing individual medicines, and audits failing to detect these issues. People found staff caring and effective, but concerns around staff knowledge of individual needs, lack of regular carers, and inconsistent complaints handling drove the responsive and well-led shortfalls.
Concerns (8)
moderateMissed or late visits: “There was no system in place to monitor the calls people received including the times of these. People and relatives raised concerns to us about this.”
moderateMissed or late visits: “They usually come about 9.25 but it was 11am before they came, no they didn't ring, usually they do, but they are so busy, poor things.”
moderateMedication management: “People's MAR did not record individual medicines for people as these were stored in blister packs ready for administration. This is not in line with best practice”
moderateStaffing levels: “People were not always supported by regular care staff and they were not always aware of who would be offering the support.”
moderateStaff competency: “Although staff had received training, people and relatives raised concerns as staff did not always know how to support people.”
moderateGovernance: “When audits had been completed, they were not always effective in identifying areas of improvement. For example, the medicines audit had not identified medicines were not individually recorded.”
minorComplaints handling: “I am not happy with how they respond to things. I just wish (management) would listen to you.”
minorCare planning: “They did come and see me at the start and asked me what I wanted, I haven't seen anyone since then”
Strengths
· Pre-employment checks completed before staff started working in people's homes
· Staff received training and competency checks before administering medicines
· Risks to people's individual needs were assessed, monitored and reviewed
· Infection control procedures followed and PPE used appropriately
· People felt treated with dignity, kindness and respect by staff
Quality-Statement breakdown (24)
safe: Staffing and recruitmentNot rated
safe: Using medicines safelyNot rated
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseNot rated
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementNot rated
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionNot rated
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongNot rated
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceNot rated
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawNot rated
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced dietNot rated
effective: Staff working with other agencies; supporting people to access healthcare servicesNot rated
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceNot rated
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; respecting equality and diversityNot rated
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their careNot rated
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceNot rated
responsive: Planning personalised care to ensure people have choice and control and to meet their needs and preferencesNot rated
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsNot rated
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsNot rated
responsive: Supporting people to develop and maintain relationships to avoid social isolationNot rated
responsive: End of life care and supportNot rated
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles, understanding quality, risks and regulatory requirementsNot rated
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringNot rated
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staffNot rated
well-led: How the provider understands and acts on the duty of candourNot rated
well-led: Working in partnership with othersNot rated