You are here

Watford House Residential Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 9 June 2017

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 April 2017. Watford House Residential Home is registered to provide accommodation with personal care support for up to 43 people. People who used the service had physical health needs and/or were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, 40 people were using the service.

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.

Our last inspection visit took place on 7 July 2016. At this time, we found there were breaches in regulations and we issued two requirement notices and told the provider to make improvements. These related to risks to individuals not being consistently managed, and actions not taken to minimise these risks. The provider had not notified us about certain incidents relating to people or the running of the home. The provider sent us a report on 30 August 2016 explaining the actions they would take to improve. We also asked the provider to make improvements to ensure people were supported in a dignified way. In addition, the registered manager did not have effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of care for people. At this inspection, we found that some improvements had been made, but further improvements were required.

People’s capacity to make decisions had been considered, however this had not been assessed in line with current guidance. They were supported to access healthcare services, but sometimes referrals were not made in a timely manner. People’s preferences were not always considered, and some people were not able to engage in activities that would stimulate and occupy them. People knew how to raise concerns and complaints, but these were not always dealt with as people wished. There were systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service, but these were not always effective.

Risks to people were assessed, monitored and reviewed. Actions were taken to reduce future risks. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and people were safe receiving support. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and the provider ensured their suitability to work with people. Medicines were administered and stored to protect people from the risks associated with them.

Staff supported people to make choices and gained people’s consent. Staff received an induction and training that helped them to support people. People enjoyed the food and were supported to maintain a balanced diet.

People’s dignity was promoted and their privacy respected. Staff encouraged people to be independent and were caring in their approach. Visitors were made to feel welcome and there were no restrictions as to when they could call. People were involved in the planning of their care and support.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities of their registration with us. People were positive about the management and leadership, and staff felt supported in their roles.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people were assessed, monitored and reviewed. Actions were taken to reduce future risks. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and people were safe receiving support. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and the provider ensured their suitability to work with people. Medicines were administered and stored to protect people from the risks associated with them.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was not consistently effective.

People’s capacity to make decisions had been considered, however this had not been assessed in line with current guidance. Staff supported people to make choices and gained people’s consent. People were supported to access healthcare services, but sometimes referrals were not made in a timely manner. Staff received an induction and training that helped them to support people. People enjoyed the food and were supported to maintain a balanced diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was caring.

People’s dignity was promoted and their privacy respected. Staff encouraged people to be independent and were caring in their approach. Visitors were made to feel welcome and there were no restrictions as to when they could call.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was not consistently responsive.

People’s preferences were not always considered, and some people were not able to engage in activities that would stimulate and occupy them. People knew how to raise concerns and complaints, but these were not always dealt with effectively. People were involved in the planning of their care and support.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was not consistently well led.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service, but these were not always effective. The registered manager understood their responsibilities of registration with us. People were positive about the management and leadership, and staff felt supported in their roles.