• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: PSS Watford Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

16 Watford Road, Anfield, Liverpool, Merseyside, L4 2TR (0151) 263 6107

Provided and run by:
PSS (UK)

All Inspections

18 November 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 18 November 2015 and was announced.

16 Watford Road is a small care home accommodating up to three people who require support and personal care. The service specialises in caring for people who need support around mental health needs. On the day of the inspection there were two people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. ‘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 told us that they felt safe living in the home and with accessing the local community. Staff were able to explain the risks associated with abuse and discrimination. Risks had been reviewed with the involvement of the person. A positive approach to risk taking was used to promote independence. Risk had been reviewed following incidents.

We saw that staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people living in the home. There was one care worker on duty at all times. This was supplemented by the presence of the registered manager for part of the week.

Staff were recruited, trained and supported in accordance with best practice. We found that appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began working at the home. We saw that references regarding people’s previous employment had been obtained and appropriate checks had been carried out prior to new members of staff working at the home. Staff were required to complete a probationary period which had to be signed-off by the registered manager. We saw records which confirmed that staff were given monthly supervision and an annual appraisal.

Staff were skilled and knowledgeable about their roles and the needs of the people living in the home. They were required to complete an extensive programme of training and induction. This included mandatory (required) training and training which was more specific and suited to the needs of people living in the home.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. People were supported to self-administer medicines with staff support to monitor that this had been done correctly.

People were supported in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

We saw that people had access to regular meals and drinks and were encouraged to prepare their own refreshments.

Care records were detailed and subject to regular review. People living in the home had a person-centred plan which told staff how they wanted to be supported and what their goals were.

Staff spoke about the people they supported in a positive and caring way and they told us they cared about people’s wellbeing.

We saw that people who lived at the home were involved in decisions when they needed to be made about what to do each day and what to eat. They were able to clearly communicate their needs and choices to staff.

The service had a complaints policy in place and processes were in place to record and investigate any complaints received.

People living in the home were encouraged to provide feedback through regular meetings. Surveys were issued to people and their families each year to gather information and assess satisfaction.

The home had a clear set of visions and values which were displayed in posters and other promotional materials. These visions and values were clearly linked to organisational strategy and used as one of the criteria on which quality was assessed. Staff were able to explain the visions and values of the services and applied them in their practice.

Staff understood their roles and the purpose of the home and were motivated in supporting people towards independence and to deliver quality care. We saw that staff encouraged people to be independent in all matters, but remained conscious of risk.

People were encouraged to develop links and activities within the local community.

Quality was discussed at all formal meetings including staff supervisions and review meetings. The reporting requirements for the quality assurance framework focused on a range of key performance indicators (KPI) which were mapped to the regulatory framework.

17 December 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke to three people about the home this included the deputy service manager, the home manager and a support worker. We also spoke to one of relatives of one of the people who lived at Watford Rd. and they told us 'we're very pleased with it'we've got no complaints'

There were two people who currently lived at the home. We observed interaction between the people who lived at Watford Rd. and the staff on duty and it was clear that their needs were well known to staff. It appeared that people living there were happy and content and they were given the support they needed.

One of the people who lived there told us 'I get on with the people here as much as I do with my own family' adding staff are 'very helpful, friendly, caring'.

We asked staff what it was like working at Watford Rd. and the home manager we spoke with told us 'It's lovely, it really is, the staff work really well as a team'everybody gets on well together. We constantly discuss things, if anyone is concerned' (we want) the best outcome for the service user- that's our main aim'.

We looked at staff personal files and found that for one member of staff who had joined and then left the service twice and found there was insufficient information to demonstrate that the registered provider had ensured that a full employment history together with a satisfactory written explanation of any gaps in employment was in place before the staff member was reappointed.

26 September 2012

During a routine inspection

On the day of our visit to 16 Watford Road, which was unannounced, two of the three people living there were not available to speak to. The person we spoke with told us that they liked living at the home and felt comfortable there. They also said the staff treated them well and respected what they said and how they felt. We observed staff having a positive rapport with the person and there was genuine support and warmth.

We spoke with a relative of a person living at 16 Watford Road following our visit. They told us that they had no complaints about the service and that their relative had a good quality of life at the home. They said that the manager always made time to respond to any discussions and staff were very caring and supportive. If there were any issues they were always contacted and were always kept informed. They said the standard of care was consistent and their relative was being well cared for. This showed the home was responsive to people's care needs.

We spoke with a health care professional who visited the home who told us that staff were responsive and liaised well with them. They told us, 'Staff in the home support people to maintain their dignity and independence.' They said that people had made good progress there and that they felt safe.

The person we spoke with who lived at 16 Watford Road said they knew how they could make their views known if they were not happy with the service provided. They said they would speak to the staff and the manager. They told us that the staff and manager were approachable.

We spoke with a relative who told us that the serve is responsive and helpful. They felt that if they had any issues they could contact the manager and staff and they felt they would be listened to.