This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 29 June and 5 July 2018. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.We inspected the service to follow up on the breaches and to carry out a comprehensive inspection.
At the last inspection in May 2017 the service was not meeting all of the legal requirements with regard to regulation 10, dignity and respect, regulation 11 need for consent and regulation 18, staff training.
Following that inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to remedy the breaches of regulations.
At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of regulations 10, 11 and 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
Washington Manor is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Washington Manor accommodates a maximum of 68 older people who require personal care, some of whom may live with dementia or a dementia related condition. At the time of inspection 57 people were accommodated at the home.
A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People said they felt safe and they could speak to staff as they were approachable. People and staff told us they thought there were enough staff on duty to provide safe care to people. Staff knew about safeguarding procedures. Staff were subject to robust recruitment checks. Arrangements for managing people’s medicines were safe. However, we have made a recommendation about the management of medicines.
Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks. Activities and entertainment were available to keep people engaged and stimulated.
The home was being refurbished and people were very positive about the changes taking place. There was a good standard of hygiene. The environment promoted the orientation and independence of people who lived with dementia.
People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care they needed. People received a varied and balanced diet to meet their nutritional needs.
Appropriate training was now provided and staff were supervised and supported. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decision making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Detailed records reflected the care provided by staff. Care was provided with kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Communication was effective to ensure people, staff and relatives were kept up-to-date about any changes in people’s care and support needs and the running of the service.
A complaints procedure was available. People told us they would feel confident to speak to staff about any concerns if they needed to. People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was regular consultation with people and family members and their views were used to improve the service. All people were complimentary about the changes that had taken place in the home.