Archived: Wadeville

Updated 11 November 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.

Before the inspection we looked at all the information we held about the service. This information included the statutory notifications that the service sent to the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events that the service is required to send us by law. We also contacted health and social care professionals and the local authority safeguarding team for feedback about the service. We used this information to help inform our inspection planning.

This inspection took place on 21 and 22 September 2016 and was unannounced. The service was inspected by one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience on 21 September 2016. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The adult social care inspector returned to the service 22 September 2016 to complete the inspection.

We spoke with one person who used the service, eight relatives, five staff, and the senior operations manager. We looked at four people’s care records and seven staff records. We also looked at records related to the management of the service such as details about the administration of medicines, complaints, accidents and incidents, safeguarding, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, health and safety, and quality assurance and monitoring.

Updated 11 November 2016

Wadeville provides accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for up to 13 adults who have a range of needs including learning disabilities. There were nine people receiving personal care and support at the time of our inspection.

At our last comprehensive inspection on 27 and 28 August 2015, we found several breaches of legal requirements. Staff were not supported through regular supervision and yearly appraisal in line with the provider’s policy, and some sections of people’s care plans did not reflect their current needs. We asked the provider for an action plan to address the breaches identified. The provider sent us an action plan telling us how they would address this issue and when they would complete the action needed to remedy the concern.

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 21 and 22 September 2016. At this inspection we found the service provided an induction and training, and supported staff through regular supervision and annual appraisal to help them undertake their role. Staff prepared, reviewed, and updated care plans for every person. The care plans were person centred and reflected people’s current needs. The provider was now compliant with the regulations following improvements made in the areas we identified at our last inspection.

There was a registered manager 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt safe and that staff and the registered manager treated them well. The service had clear procedures to support staff to recognise and respond to abuse. The registered manager and staff completed safeguarding training. Staff completed risk assessments for every person who used the service which were up to date and included detailed guidance for staff to reduce risks. There was an effective system to manage accidents and incidents, and to prevent them happening again. The service had arrangements in place to deal with emergencies. The service carried out comprehensive background checks of staff before they started working and there were enough staff on duty to support to people when required. Staff supported people so that they took their medicines safely.

The provider had taken action to ensure the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed.

Staff assessed people’s nutritional needs and supported them to have a balanced diet. Staff supported people to access the healthcare services they required and monitored their healthcare appointments.

People and their relatives where appropriate, were involved in the assessment, planning and review of their care. Staff considered people’s choices, health and social care needs, and their general wellbeing.

Staff supported people in a way which was kind, respectful and encouraged them to maintain their independence. Staff also protected people’s privacy and dignity, and human rights.

The service supported people to take part in a range of activities in support of their need for social interaction and stimulation. The service had a clear policy and procedure about managing complaints. People knew how to complain and told us they would do so if necessary.

There was a positive culture at the home where people felt included and consulted. People and their relatives commented positively about staff and the registered manager. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.

The service sought the views of people who used the services to help drive improvements. The provider had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of services people received, and to make improvements where required. Staff used the results of audits to identify how improvements could be made to the service. However, we found that the provider had not notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of the authorisations of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) as required. As a result of the inspection feedback, the provider then notified the CQC. We saw there was no negative impact on the people who used the services.