Archived: White Gates Care Centre

White Gates is a nursing home that is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 51 people. At the time of our inspection there were 42 people living at the service, a number of whom were living with dementia.

At our last inspection we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and we did not identify, from our visit or ongoing monitoring, any serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People and their relatives told us they thought the service was safe. People’s risks were identified and staff acted to address any known risks. People’s medicines were stored and administered safely and infection control practices were followed. Staff understood how to protect people from harm and knew when to report any abuse.

Staffing levels were seen to be safe on the day, however we received feedback about people having to wait for care on some occasions. We have made a recommendation.

Appropriate recruitment checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable to support people in the home. Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training so that they could meet the needs of people who lived at the home.

People were supported to maintain good health and they had access to relevant healthcare professionals when they needed them. People benefitted from the way the staff worked with other services to ensure effective care and support. People had a varied and balanced diet to support their nutrition and health.

People’s consent was sought in line with the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. Where people's liberty was restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Act, and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), to ensure the person's rights were protected.

People were looked after by kind and caring staff who knew them well. People’s privacy and independence was promoted. Contact with families and friends was encouraged. We received positive feedback from people and their families about the service provided.

People were supported to make decisions about their day to day care, including taking part in any activities and with their meals. People were given opportunities to go on occasional outings.

Care for people at the end of their life was proactive and responsive. The service followed nationally recognised standards for end of life care.

Complaints were responded to in a timely way and outcomes agreed.

The provider showed a commitment to reviewing and maintaining a quality service. There were systems in place to monitor people’s care and evidence of improvements being made. Incidents were tracked and learning outcomes were identified. The manager ensured statutory notifications were sent as required. People living at the home also benefitted from the relationships the service had formed with local organisations.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

White Gates Care Centre is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to 51 people. At the time of our inspection there were 47 people living at the service, some of whom were living with dementia.

A registered manager was 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.

At our last inspection of October 2013 we did not identify any concerns.

People and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe. People told us that staff were kind and considerate and they had not experienced any issues to their safety whilst living at the service. Staff had received training in relation to safeguarding. Staff were able to describe the types of abuse and the processes to be followed when reporting suspected or actual abuse.

Staff had received training, regular supervisions and annual appraisals that helped them to perform their duties. New staff received a full induction to the service which included training.

There were enough staff to ensure that people could undertake their activities and to meet the assessed needs of people. The registered manager reviewed staffing at the service every month. Staff encouraged people to be independent and to do things for themselves.

Where there were restrictions in place, staff had followed the legal requirements to make sure this was done in the person’s best interests. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure decisions were made for people in the least restrictive way.

People and relatives were positive about the care provided and their consent was sought. People we spoke to consistently said that they liked the service.

People’s care and health needs were assessed and they were able to access all healthcare professionals as and when they required.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and people were supported by staff to eat and drink as and when required. The menus provided a choice of meals and people were able to choose a meal that was different to the menu choices.

Documentation that enabled staff to support people and to record the care and treatment they had received was up to date and regularly reviewed. People and/or their relatives had signed their care plans to signify their involvement in their care. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes were recorded and staff were knowledgeable about the care needs of people.

Staff showed kindness and compassion and people’s privacy and dignity were upheld. People were able to spend time on their own in their bedrooms and their personal care needs were attended to in private.

People were able to take part in meaningful activities that helped to prevent them from becoming isolated. People were encouraged to take part in activities that helped them to reminisce about their childhood and past lives.

People and relatives told us they thought the home was well run and they were able to have open discussions with staff. People told us they were able to raise concerns and make complaints if they needed to.

Staff were knowledgeable about the values and visions of the service and worked in line with these. Staff were also aware of the whistle blowing procedures and would not hesitate to report bad practice.

Quality assurance processes were in place to help drive improvement at the home.

We received written feedback from three social care professionals and one person whose relative had lived at the service that complimented the staff and care provided.