Our Response to the CQC Report and Commitment to Improvement at Wyndham House
We recognise the concerns raised by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and apologise that aspects of the service did not meet expected standards at the time of the inspection. We take these matters seriously, and the safety and wellbeing of residents remain our highest priority.
However, it is important to note that the inspection took place over four months ago, and the report does not fully reflect the current position of the home. Since that time, we have acted swiftly and implemented a comprehensive improvement plan across clinical care, staffing, training and governance.
We have carefully reviewed the findings and submitted detailed evidence to the CQC. During the review process, we provided over 57 pieces of additional evidence to support our challenges to the regulatory breaches and assessment itself. While we fully respect the role of the regulator, we strongly challenge aspects of the assessment and consider that parts of the report are inaccurate or disproportionate and do not fully reflect the evidence available at the time of inspection or the context in which issues occurred.
To ensure transparency, we have set out below a number of examples where we consider the report does not fully reflect the evidence or context.
- Safety, Culture and Partnership Working
CQC stated:
The provider did not always work effectively with people and healthcare partners and did not consistently promote a culture that protected people from harm, including risks relating to abuse, neglect and discrimination.
Our position:
We consider that this statement significantly overstates the findings and elevates the tone beyond the available evidence. While there were areas where improvements in consistency were required, the evidence demonstrates that the service was actively engaging with healthcare professionals, making appropriate safeguarding referrals, and involving external partners in care and decision-making.
There is no substantiated evidence to suggest that the service operated within a culture that exposed people to abuse, neglect, or discrimination. The wording used risks conflating documentation or care delivery issues with much more serious safeguarding concerns, which is not proportionate.
- Repositioning and Pressure Care
CQC stated:
Repositioning requirements were “hardly ever met”, with individuals left for extended periods without appropriate care.
Our position:
We acknowledge that there were inconsistencies in both compliance and recording in relation to repositioning. However, the assertion that repositioning was “hardly ever met” is not supported by the overall record.
Evidence demonstrates variability in practice, including periods where repositioning was completed as required. In addition, records indicate that care was delivered but not always documented contemporaneously. The conclusion appears to generalise from selected examples and does not sufficiently distinguish between gaps in recording and confirmed omissions of care.
- Environmental Risk and Falls
CQC stated:
Trip hazards were present “all over the home”, contributing to risks associated with a number of recorded falls.
Our position:
We acknowledge that environmental issues were identified, including isolated examples of trip hazards that required attention. However, the description that such hazards were present “all over the home” is not supported by the evidence and presents an exaggerated depiction of risk.
The examples identified relate to specific and time-limited issues, such as temporary conditions during refurbishment or isolated environmental oversights. These do not represent a sustained or uncontrolled environmental risk across the service.
In addition, the report appears to draw a direct association between the recorded number of falls and environmental factors. The evidence demonstrates that the majority of falls related to a small number of individuals with complex, high‑risk needs, many of whom were under the care and review of external healthcare professionals. This important clinical context is not fully reflected in the report.
- Governance and Oversight
CQC stated:
The provider did not have effective systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.
Our position:
We do not accept that this conclusion fully reflects the governance systems in place at the time of inspection. Evidence submitted demonstrates that audit processes, management oversight, escalation mechanisms and organisational involvement were all present.
We recognise that greater consistency and embedding of these systems was required at service level. However, this is distinct from a finding that governance systems were absent or ineffective. The report does not fully reflect the actions already underway or the level of organisational oversight in place at the time.
Immediate actions were taken following the inspection to address the issues identified and strengthen day‑to‑day oversight of care delivery.
Since the inspection, we have strengthened governance, oversight and clinical monitoring both at Wyndham House and across the wider organisation, including the introduction of an enhanced governance framework from January 2026 to provide clearer accountability and more robust monitoring systems.
Wyndham House continues to operate, and people living at the home are safe and supported. Significant progress has already been made, and we remain confident that, with the improvements in place and continued focus from our team, the service will deliver care that meets and exceeds the standards expected by residents, families and regulators.
If you would like to discuss any areas of the report, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.