People’s experience of using this service and what we foundPeople were not always protected from the risk of harm; water temperatures exceeded the safe ranges identified in the provider’s policy. Quality assurance checks had not always been used effectively to identify shortfalls. For example, that water temperatures were not being checked in line with the provider’s policy and that water exceeded safe temperature ranges.
The provider could not always be assured people were protected from the risk of infection. Areas in the home were visibly dirty and could not always be cleaned effectively because they had not been adequately maintained. The provider had approved for maintenance work to commence in April 2020. Statutory notifications were not always submitted to the commission when required.
Staff had access to personal protective equipment [PPE], such as gloves and aprons. People were protected from the risk of potential abuse. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people and staff were recruited safely.
The provider engaged with people and their relatives. The registered manager had built strong links with the local community. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager.
People’s needs were assessed, although assessment for oral healthcare was not always completed in line with published guidance about best practice. We did see some evidence people were supported to access the dentist. Staff were supported in their roles with relevant training and support.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported to access meaningful activities and opportunities for work and development. People felt proud about what they had achieved. People received personalised care and support that was responsive to their needs. People’s end of life care preferences were explored and recorded.
People told us they were supported by kind and caring staff, our observations confirmed this. People’s dignity and privacy was respected and maintained. People were supported to be involved with decisions about their care.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Wyvern Lodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
We have identified breaches in relation to the inconsistent submission of statutory notifications and safe care.
Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.