Working at Waterfield House
Grays Close, Ipswich, IP7 6AG
Operated by Runwood Homes Limited
76 bedsNursing homesResidential homes
Workplace Score
5.5/10
AI analysis of latest data
Our AI workplace review
PlainSight AI Review
Last updated: 10 February 2026
Score: 5.5/10
Key Finding
"Supportive leaders and positive staff culture with good training, but gaps in safety recording and mixed staffing views hold it back."
Safety & Risk
4/10
!
The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on effective investigation and recording of incidents. The recording of lessons learnt was generic. Recording did not always provide a clear picture of what the situation had been, what happened, and action taken to prevent recurrence.
Staff Culture
6/10
✓
Staff were positive about working for the provider, they told us they enjoyed their work, felt well supported, received continued training and opportunities to develop. A staff member said, “All in all I find Waterfield a good place to work, under good leadership. It is a happy environment,”
Staffing Levels
5/10
!
We received mixed views from people and relatives as to whether there were sufficient staff. One person said, “They need more staff, often hard to find someone,”
Training & Dev
6/10
✓
Staff completed mandatory training and additional training the provider had identified as required. Staff training data confirmed good compliance. Staff confirmed they received the training and support they required, and this included ‘supervision’ with their line managers
Management
6/10
✓
Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment.
Programmes
6/10
✓
There was a varied programme of activities. People were engaged and supported to take part in exercises... Steps had been taken to widen participation and involvement within the community. People were provided with opportunities to take part in local community activities
Points to consider
Safety processes have gaps like poor recording of incidents and lessons learned that are too generic.
The recording of lessons learnt was generic. Recording did not always provide a clear picture of what the situation had been, what happened, and action taken to prevent recurrence.
Staffing levels get mixed feedback from residents with some saying it's hard to find staff when needed.
We received mixed views from people and relatives as to whether there were sufficient staff. One person said, “They need more staff, often hard to find someone,”
Some staff files are missing full pre-employment checks which affects recruitment quality.
Staff files did not always demonstrate that appropriate pre-employment checks had been completed. The provider had identified this shortly before our inspection and was taking action to rectify deficiencies.
AI Generated
CQC Inspection Overview
CQC Inspection
Last inspected: May 2025
Good
Safe
✓
Good
Effective
✓
Good
Caring
✓
Good
Responsive
✓
Good
Management Quality
Well-led: Good
Staff Reviews
Direct feedback from current and former employees
No one has reviewed yet. Be the first.
Scan the QR code or tap the button to chat with us on WhatsApp. Your identity stays completely anonymous.
Chat on WhatsAppSources
- Care Quality Commission (CQC) Inspection Data
- PlainSight staff reviews