Weatherstones Court

Updated 3 November 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 checked 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 was a comprehensive inspection.

This inspection took place on 4 & 5 October 2017.

The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure that staff and someone in charge would be available

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.

Before this inspection we looked at the Provider Information Response (PIR) for this service. 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 safeguarding alerts and information received from a local authority.

After our inspection we telephoned four family members of people who used the service, spoke with two people, and observed one person. We also looked at three staff personnel files and four care plans for people who used the service. We spoke to five staff including the registered manager. We looked at other documentation relating to the running of the service.

Updated 3 November 2017

This announced inspection of Weatherstones Court took place on 4 & 5 October 2017.

Weatherstones Court is a supported housing and domiciliary care service. It is a service provided by Autism Together to support and provide personal care to people who have Autism. This support was provided to people who had various level of support needs within their own apartments which were rented from a private landlord. At the time of our inspection 15 people were receiving support in their own apartments.

At the last inspection in May 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. We found during this inspection that the service remained ‘Good.’

People we spoke with and their relatives told us they liked the staff. There were some points raised about staff consistency as many of the staff had left in the last 12 months, mostly due to internal promotion. The service was relying on the use of regular agency staff, however some relatives felt this had a negative impact on their family member. We did see however, continuous consultation with the families and extensive effort to ensure recruitment was on-going. We saw there was a plan in place to address these concerns and the service was actively following a recruitment processes which was updated and reviewed every month.

There was a manager in post who was registered with The Care Quality Commission (CQC). Risks were well assessed and information was updated as and when required. Staff were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt anyone was at risk of harm or abuse this included ‘whistleblowing’ to external organisations. Safeguarding concerns, outcomes and investigations were clearly documented, including any additional learning the provider had taken from the concern to prevent re-occurrence. The registered manager had systems and processes in place to ensure that staff who worked at the service were recruited safely. People were supported to manage their medication safely by staff who were trained to do so.

All newly appointed staff were enrolled onto the organisations induction process which was closely aligned to the principles of the Care Certificate. Supervisions were in date, and there was only a small number that were overdue. Training was classroom based, and was mixed with hands on experience over a two week period.

The service was working in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated principles. Where people could consent to decisions regarding their care and support this had been well documented, and where people lacked capacity, the appropriate best interest processes had been followed. The registered manager had approached the Court of Protection (CoP) to lawfully deprive someone of their liberty.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the staff and the service in general. People told us they liked the people who supported them. Staff were able to give us examples of how they preserved dignity and privacy when providing personal care.

Care plans contained information about people’s likes, dislikes, preferences, routines and personalities. Staff we spoke with demonstrated that they knew the people they supported well, and enjoyed the relationships they had built with people. Some staff had started working at the service via the agency and had then applied to become full time members of staff.

Complaints were well managed and documented in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy. The complaints policy contained contact details for the local authorities and commissioning groups.

Quality assurance systems were effective and measured service provision. Regular audits were taking place for different aspects of service delivery. Regular action plans were drawn up when areas of improvement were identified. Staff meetings took place on a regular basis, and there was a process across the organisation to gather feedback, however we saw there had been a poor response to this.

Further information is in the detailed findings below