Archived: Vancouver House Also known as Wisteria Care

Updated 2 December 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 was an announced inspection. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice to let them know we would be visiting the service, because we needed to ensure someone would be available at the office. The inspection took place on 28 September 2016 and was conducted by one inspector.

Sometimes before an inspection we ask the provider to complete a Provider Information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. A PIR request had not been sent to the provider on this occasion.

As part of the inspection we looked at the information that we hold about the service prior to visiting the location. This included notifications from the provider about deaths, accidents/incidents and safeguarding alerts which they are required to send us by law. We also received feedback from the local authority with their views about the service provided to people by the provider.

During our inspection, we visited the office location and spoke with the registered manager and one of the Directors. We also reviewed the care records of three people, to see how their care was planned and recorded. We also looked at training records for all of the staff that worked for the provider and at three staff files to look at recruitment and supervision processes. In addition, we looked at records which supported the provider to monitor the quality and management of the service, including feedback surveys, compliments and complaints as well as the policies and procedures for the service.

After the site visit, we conducted telephone interviews and spoke with three people who used the service and three two to see what they thought of the care and support they received. We also spoke with five members of staff including the registered manager, a Director and three care staff.

Updated 2 December 2016

This inspection took place on 28 September 2016. This was an announced inspection.

The provider registered with us in November 2014. This was their first inspection since they have been registered with us.

Vancouver House, also known as Wisteria Care, provides a domiciliary care service to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, 21 people were receiving the regulated activity, personal care, from the provider.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our visit. 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.

The service was not always safe or well led because the provider had not always ensured that they had followed safe recruitment practices and risk assessments and care plans were not always consistent in providing significant information to staff. The provider had not always implemented effective quality assurance practices to identify the shortfalls found during the inspection and information that they were legally obliged to tell us had not been sent.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm as staff were aware of the processes they needed to follow. People were supported by enough members of staff who knew them well enough to ensure their needs were met. We also found that people received their prescribed medicines as required.

The service was responsive because care was planned in a person centred way that took in to consideration people’s individual care needs.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and monitored to identify any risks associated with nutrition and hydration and they had food they enjoyed. People were also supported to maintain good health because staff worked closely with other health and social care professionals when necessary.

The service was caring because people were supported by staff that were friendly, caring and supportive. People received the care they wanted based on their personal preferences and likes and dislikes because staff took the time to get to know people well. People were also cared for by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and were supported to express their views in all aspects of their lives including the care and support that was provided to them, as far as reasonably possible.

People received care and support with their consent, where possible and people’s rights were protected because key processes had been fully followed to ensure people were not unlawfully restricted.

People and their relatives felt involved in the planning and review of their care because staff communicated with them in ways they could understand. People were also encouraged to offer feedback on the quality of the service and knew how to complain.