We carried out a review of the data available to us about Warwick House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Warwick House, you can give feedback on this service.
Warwick House is a care home that provides personal care for up to 35 people with complex mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar illnesses, in an adapted building. At the time of the inspection 29 people were living in the care home.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs safely and effectively. Views of people, relatives and health professionals were valued and used to make improvements to the care and support people received.
People's mental health needs were being met in line with their personal preferences. The service responded promptly when people’s needs changed. The service worked very well with other health professionals to make sure people’s care needs were met.
People made decisions about their care, and when people chose to make unwise decisions, this was respected. Where people did not have capacity to make decisions, legal processes were followed.
Staff felt they were valued and respected by the registered manager who was described as ‘very hands on’ and who sought their involvement to improve and develop the service.
People were supported by staff who were caring, kind and thoughtful, and who took all opportunities to promote independence.
The service was well managed by the registered manager. Quality assurance systems, including audits, feedback from people who used the service, staff and health professionals were all used to make continuous improvements to the quality of the service people received.
Rating at last inspection: The last rating for this service was good (published January 2017).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection. The service was rated Good overall. This was based on the findings at this inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
A registered manager was in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were happy and relaxed with staff. They said they felt safe and there were sufficient staff to support them. One person told us, “I do feel safe, it is usually quite a calm environment”. Another said, “There is always someone around. Just now I had to get someone to help out with [person using the service] and the staff member was right there”. When staff were recruited, their employment history was checked and references obtained. Checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector. Staff were knowledgeable and trained in safeguarding adults and what action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place.
Medicines were managed safely and in accordance with current regulations and guidance. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.
People were being supported to make decisions in their best interests. The registered manager and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately and steps taken to minimise the risk of similar events happening in the future. Risks associated with the environment and equipment had been identified and managed. Emergency procedures were in place in the event of fire and people knew what to do, as did the staff.
Staff had received essential training and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service, including managing behaviour that may challenge others, and the use of sharps (sharps is a medical term for devices with sharp points or edges that can puncture or cut skin). Staff had received both one to one and group supervision meetings with their manager, and formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals were in place. One member of staff told us, “I get supervision, it’s useful. We talk about key working and any issues”. They added, “We get training all the time. I asked [registered manager] for training around mental health and she’s organising it”.
People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink well. There was a varied daily choice of meals and people were able to give feedback and have choice in what they ate and drank. One person told us, “I enjoy the food here, but if I don’t like what’s on the menu, I will ask for a jacket potato”. Special dietary requirements were met, and people’s weight was monitored, with their permission. Health care was accessible for people and appointments were made for regular check-ups as needed.
People chose how to spend their day and they took part in activities in the service and the community. People told us they enjoyed the activities, which included arts and crafts, films, trips to the barbers and local outings and themed events, such as pumpkin carving and a Christmas party. One person told us, “There are things going on like craft and a pumpkin competition and we’ve got a Christmas party coming up”. People were also encouraged to stay in touch with their families and receive visitors.
People felt well looked after and supported. We observed friendly and genuine relationships had developed between people and staff. One person told us, “The staff have a good sense of humour and I can’t say there are any of them I don’t like”. Care plans described people’s needs and preferences and they were encouraged to be as independent as possible.
People were encouraged to express their views and had completed surveys. Feedback received showed people were satisfied overall, and felt staff were friendly and helpful. People also said they felt listened to and any concerns or issues they raised were addressed. One person told us, “I would speak to the manager, but if it was more serious, there is a complaints procedure I could follow, it is displayed around the home”.
Staff were asked for their opinions on the service and whether they were happy in their work. They felt supported within their roles, describing an ‘open door’ management approach, where managers were always available to discuss suggestions and address problems or concerns. The provider undertook quality assurance reviews to measure and monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement.
We spoke to the people who live at Warwick House and the staff who worked there. Seven people spoke to us at length about their experience of life at Warwick House. They told us how the home met their expectations and needs.
People told us that they were happy living at Warwick House and they considered it their home. We observed how people were involved in regular activities and had the freedom to come and go as they pleased. People were involved in meaningful activities and were independent within the home and outside it.
We found evidence of a team of long serving staff who worked well together. We interviewed five staff members about their work in the home and their experiences as employees. Staff told us they were well supported in their role with access to appropriate training and support.
At the last inspection issues had been raised about supporting workers. The provider told us how they would improve. We found these had been implemented.
People told us they were happy and felt safe living at the home. They told us Warwick House was their home and they enjoyed living there. We saw that people had regular opportunities to participate in meaningful activities if they wanted to. People were encouraged to live as independently as possible within the restrictions of their disability.
We found evidence that the service had a stable team of staff who worked well together. We interviewed three staff who were employed to work in the home, including the manager. Staff told us that they felt well supported in their role with access to appropriate training and guidance. However we found gaps in the training records where training could not be verified.