You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 October 2016

The inspection took place on 20 and 21 September 2016. We announced the inspection to the provider at 4.30pm on 19 September 2016. This was because the registration covers a range of different services and we wanted to make sure managers from each service would be available to meet with us and arrange for us to visit and meet with people using the services.

The last inspection took place 27 September 2013

Whiteley Village is a retirement community near Walton upon Thames in Surrey. The Village includes a nursing home, Whiteley House, for up to 86 older people and a residential home, Ingram House, for up to 27 older people, known collectively as the Care Centre. There is also an extra care scheme, Huntley House, for up to 51 older people living in their own flats and receiving personal care when they needed. The service is also registered to provide personal care to anyone living within the village in one of their 262 almshouse cottages and 16 privately owned houses.

The village is run by The Whiteley Homes Trust, a registered charity. The Trust states that it's role is ''To enable our older residents to be as independent as possible and contribute as much as they can to Village life.'' The Trust's admission criteria for people wishing to live in the almshouses or Huntley House is “older generations” (those who have reached state pension age) who are of limited financial means. The Trust accepts people who fund or part fund their own care at the Care Centre.

Whiteley Village is registered to provide four regulated activities. Three of these, accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury for the Care Centre; and the regulated activity of personal care for Huntley House and the domiciliary care service in the rest of the village. At the time of our inspection 95 people were living in the Care Centre and 62 people were receiving personal care and support at Huntley House or in the rest of the village.

There was a registered manager in post for the regulated activity of personal care. The registered manager for the Care Centre had left the organisation earlier in 2016. The person who managed Whiteley House and Ingram House had applied to be registered with the Care Quality Commission and this application was being processed. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People living at Whiteley Village were happy there. They felt their needs were met. People felt safe with the care provided and within the environment. There were clear procedures to safeguarding people from the risk of abuse and to investigate any allegations of abuse. The risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and the staff had guidance on how to help keep people safe. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. There were enough staff and they were recruited in a suitable way.

People consented to their care and treatment. Where people had difficulty making decisions the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed to ensure people's rights were protected. People's nutritional needs were being met and people living in the Care Centre, Huntley House and the rest of the village had access to freshly prepared nutritious meals if they wanted these. People were supported to stay healthy and their mental and physical health were assessed, monitored and their needs were met. They had access to doctors and other healthcare professionals and the staff worked closely with these professionals to ensure people received the right support.

The staff liked working at the village and felt their views and opinions were listened to. They had access to a range of training and they had good support and guidance. There were regular meetings of all levels of staff and information was shared appropriately.

People received support from staff who were kind, caring and polite. Whilst we witnessed some interactions which were not positive, the overwhelming feedback from people using the service and their representatives was that the staff were very caring. The provider responded appropriately to the concerns we witnessed and spoke with the staff concerned who acknowledged and recognised where their behaviour may have appeared uncaring. People told us they had good relationships with the staff. They staff spoke fondly about the people who they cared for. People's privacy was respected and they were supported to maintain independence and live the life they wanted to. The staff had a good awareness of how to support people at the end of their lives and people were able to receive care at this time which reflected their personal wishes and preferences because these had been discussed in advance with them.

People were involved in planning their own care and their views and opinions were acted upon. The service valued the importance of family and friendships and, where people wished, their families were involved in planning and reviewing their care. People's care needs were met in a person centred way and their individuality was valued and respected. There was a wide range of social events and activities within the village and in the different locations. People were supported to access these, although some people in the Care Centre wished for more opportunities for social activities designed specifically for them.

Senior managers within the Trust were positive role models who were well respected. They valued people who lived at the village and the staff and regularly asked for their opinions. They responded appropriately to feedback and concerns. There were good systems for monitoring the quality of the service and identifying themes and trends. The service worked in partnership with other organisations whilst striving for continuous improvement. There was a very positive culture and a sense of community which was felt by people living there and staff alike. The values of the organisation represented the views and opinions of the people who lived there.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 22 October 2016

The service was not always safe.

We identified some health and safety concerns during the first day of our inspection, which put people at risk. The provider took action to rectify these however they had not previously identified these risks.

People felt safe with the care they received and living in Whiteley Village.

There were procedures designed to safeguard people and protect them from abuse.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of people and they were recruited in a safe way.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

The risks to people's safety were assessed and appropriately managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 October 2016

The service was effective.

People had consented to their care and treatment.

People were cared for by well trained and supported staff.

People lived in an appropriate environment which met their needs.

There was a range of freshly prepared food which met people's nutritional needs and preferences.

People were supported to meet their healthcare needs and had access to other healthcare professionals when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 October 2016

The service was caring.

People were cared for by kind, supportive and polite staff. They had good relationships with the staff.

The staff valued people's individual needs and treated people in a person centred way.

People's privacy and dignity was respected.

People were given the right care as they were approaching the end of their lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 October 2016

The service was responsive.

People, and those that mattered to them, were actively involved in developing their care and support plans.

The staff made every effort to make sure people were empowered and their choices and wishes were respected.

People told us the staff made their family welcome and valued them.

The staff recognised the challenges some people face with transition.

Care and support plans were detailed and included person centred information about how to meet people's needs.

The service protected people from the risks of social isolation and loneliness and recognised the importance of social contact and companionship.

There was a range of ways for people to feed back their experience of the care they received and raise any issues or concerns they had. Complaints and concerns were taken seriously and the provider learnt from these.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 October 2016

The service was well-led.

People using the service, their representatives and the staff felt it was well-led.

The senior managers were positive role models.

The provider actively sought and acted upon the views of others through creative and innovative methods.

The Trust had developed and sustained a positive culture in the service encouraging staff and people to raise issues of concern with them, which they always act upon.

Records were appropriately maintained, accurate and up to date.

The provider and staff undertook a number of different audits to check the quality of the service

There was a strong emphasis on continually striving to improve.

The service worked in partnership with other organisations to make sure they were following current practice and providing a high quality service.