Archived: Waters View Residential Home

Updated 22 December 2016

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 unannounced inspection took place 4 October 2016 and undertaken by two inspectors.

Before our inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service: what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed information we had received about the service such as notifications. This is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also looked at information sent to us from other stakeholders, for example the local authority and members of the public.

We spoke with five people who used the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who may not be able to verbally communicate their experience of the service with us. We also observed the interaction between people who used the service and the staff.

We looked at records in relation to three people’s care. We spoke with the deputy manager and five members of care staff including kitchen staff. We looked at records relating to the management of the service, staff recruitment and training, and systems for monitoring the quality of the service.

Updated 22 December 2016

Waters View Residential Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 15 people, some who were living with dementia.

Our previous inspection of 11 and 28 August 2015 found that the service required improvement. There were breaches in regulation that related to the service not being up to date with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the assessment of people’s capacity to consent to care and treatment was not being undertaken in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ineffective quality assurance systems to ensure that the service continuously improved. Improvements were needed in the recording of external medicines and the assessment of risk in relation to pressure care. People’s needs, wellbeing and social inclusion was not effectively assessed, planned and delivered to meet their needs and improvements were required to ensure people were involved in their care planning. After this inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the need for consent and good governance.

There were 14 people living in the service when we inspected on 4 October 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made.

People received care that was personalised to them and met their individual needs and wishes. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a caring, compassionate and professional manner. They were knowledgeable about people’s choices, views and preferences and acted on what they said. The atmosphere in the service was friendly and welcoming.

Systems were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to. Procedures and processes guided staff on how to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. Recruitment checks were carried out on prospective staff with sufficient numbers employed who had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure people’s medicines were obtained, stored and administered safely.

The service was up to date with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 20015 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff sought consent from people before supporting them with their care and respected their choices.

People were supported to see, when needed, health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.

People’s nutritional needs were being assessed and they were supported to eat and drink sufficiently.

Processes were in place that encouraged feedback from people who used the service, relatives, and visiting professionals. There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service.

There was a system in place to manage complaints and use them to improve the service. There was an open and empowering culture in the service. Quality assurance processes were used to identify shortfalls and address them. As a result the service continued to improve.