Wisteria Lodge

Updated 10 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 15 September 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications that had been submitted. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us. We also reviewed the provider information return (PIR) which the provider is required to send to us, and gives us some key information about the service and tells us what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we observed staff supporting people who used the service, we spoke with one person who used the service, one relative, two care staff, the registered manager and the provider.

We requested feedback from commissioning staff, however we had not received any at the time the inspection report was drafted.

We reviewed care records relating to three people who used the service, three staff recruitment records and other documents relating to people's health and well-being. These included staff training records, medication records and quality monitoring audits.

Updated 10 October 2017

The inspection took place on 15 September 2017 and was unannounced.

Wisteria lodge is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care. There were 4 people living at the home when we inspected.

At the last inspection the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The majority of people who lived at the home were unable to communicate verbally but we observed staff supporting people with a range of communication aids, which included signing and interpreting people’s body language with regards to meeting their needs and wishes. A relative also said they felt their family member was kept safe.

Individual risks to people were appropriately assessed, identified and managed.

There were enough competent staff to provide people with support when they needed it. Staff had been recruited through a robust recruitment process and had received appropriate training and support to help enable them to carry out their roles effectively.

People received appropriate support to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain their health and well-being in relation to nutrition and hydration.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). People were supported to have maximum choice in relation to all aspects of their lives.

People, relatives and staff told us, and we observed that people were treated with kindness by staff who respected their privacy and maintained their dignity.

People and their relatives were given the opportunity to feed back on the service and their views were listened to and acted upon.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs. People were given appropriate support and encouragement to access and participate in meaningful activities and to pursue hobbies and individual interests both within the home and in the community.

People were supported to share their views by giving feedback through residents’ meetings or by recording their dissatisfaction in a comments and complaints book located in reception. People knew how to complain if they were unhappy with any aspect of the service and were confident they would be listened to.

There was an open, transparent and inclusive atmosphere within the service. People and staff had regular meetings to discuss the service and think about future developments and improvements they could make.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor the overall quality and safety of the service and shortfalls identified were promptly acted on to improve the quality of the service. People gave positive feedback on the management of the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below