Archived: West Park Care Home

The service had a registered manager. 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.

At the last full comprehensive inspection on 9 July 2015, we rated the service as Requires Improvement overall. This was because we wanted to make sure improvements were sustained over a period of time following an Inadequate rating in January 2015. At this full comprehensive inspection we found improvements had been made and sustained. There were 30 people using the service at the time of this inspection; four people were in hospital which brought the occupancy down to 26 although people were due to be discharged back to West Park shortly.

We found the service was safe for people who lived there. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse and knew how to raise any concerns. People had risk assessments which helped to guide staff in how to minimise risk whilst helping them to maintain their independence.

We found people had their needs assessed and plans of care were developed which helped to guide staff in how to deliver individualised care to them in line with their preferences.

People’s health and nutritional needs were met. We found staff contacted health professionals in a timely way for advice and treatment. The menus provided people with a varied and nutritional diet and any concerns about weight management or swallowing difficulties were discussed with dieticians and speech and language therapists. People told us they liked the meals.

We saw people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were ordered in a timely way, stored safely and only administered by qualified nurses or staff who had completed training.

We found people were supported and encouraged to make their own choices and decisions. When people were assessed as not having capacity to make their own decisions, the registered provider and registered manager worked with mental capacity legislation and held best interest meetings with relevant people present to discuss decision-making options.

Staff were recruited safely and in sufficient numbers to ensure that people’s needs were met.

People told us staff were kind and caring to them. We observed staff had developed good relationships with people who used the service and their relatives. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and confidentiality maintained. We saw that personal records were held securely and conversations with health professionals were held in private.

Records showed us staff had access to training, support and supervision. This enabled staff to feel confident when supporting people and knowledgeable about meeting their needs.

There was a quality assurance system which helped to identify shortfalls so these could be addressed quickly. We found the registered manager used this system to learn and improve practice.

The registered provider had a complaints procedure and people who used the service and their relatives felt able to raise concerns knowing they would be addressed.

People told us they liked the meals and had sufficient quantities to eat and drink. Comments included, 'The food is excellent and plenty of it' and 'I never used to eat much at home and left a lot. When I told my family I ate all my meals they didn't believe me.'

We found there were systems in place such as policies and staff training to help ensure people were protected from abuse and poor practice.

We found the service had sufficient equipment to help meet people's needs and ensure their health, safety and welfare.

The manager told us they made sure all the required employment checks were completed prior to staff starting to work at the service. New staff completed an induction to ensure they were familiar with the service.

Since the last inspection improvements had been made in staff training and supervision. Staff told us they received more training which helped them to feel confident and skilled when caring for people who used the service. People who used the service told us staff looked after them well.

We found records were accurate and kept up to date when required. They were stored securely.

We found that people had their needs assessed and planned for. People spoken with told us they were looked after well and their needs were met. Comments included, 'The carers are there for you if you need them', 'If I say I'm unwell they get the doctor' and 'The nurse comes in every other day to see me.'

We found that medicines were managed appropriately and people spoken with told us they received their medicines on time.

We found that not all staff had the essential skills to care for people who used the service. We also found there were gaps in the induction and staff supervision systems.

People who used the service and their relatives completed questionnaires about the service they received. Staff and professional visitors had not been asked to complete questionnaires. Some audits of the systems used in the home were carried out so improvements could be identified.

The service had a complaints procedure and people who used the service told us they felt able to complain. Comments included, 'I would go to the staff. I don't like complaining so it would have to be bad but I would complain if I needed to' and 'I would tell the nurse in charge.'