Archived: 16 White Wings House

16 White Wings House provides care and support to people living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate the premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of our inspection 15 people were living in their own flats within 16 White Wings House. The service supports people with different needs and backgrounds, including people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities, mental health needs, autism spectrum disorders and people who may display behaviours that challenge others.

People’s experience of using this service:

People spoke highly of the service they received from 16 White Wings House. The service had strong person-centred values and placed people’s wellbeing at the heart of their work. People received personalised support which met their needs and preferences.

People were fully involved in the planning and delivery of their care and this was done in a way which encouraged independence. People’s care plans contained personalised information which detailed how they wanted their care to be delivered.

Staff knew people well and worked hard to enable them to share their views, make choices and live active lives as independently as possible. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways; people’s support was focused on them having as many opportunities and choices as possible. Registering the Right Support is best practice guidance designed for services supporting people with learning disabilities and autism.

Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and acted upon. We found a number of risk assessments for people had not been completed. However, staff knew people’s needs well and were taking action to protect people. Action was taken immediately following our inspection to complete the necessary risk assessments.

People were protected from potential abuse by staff who had received training and were confident in raising concerns. There was a thorough recruitment process in place that checked potential staff were safe to work with people who may be vulnerable.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who worked hard to promote their independence and sense of wellbeing. Staff were provided with the training, supervision and support they needed to care for people well.

There was strong leadership at the service. People and staff spoke highly of the management team and there was a positive culture at the service with people and staff feeling their voices were listened to.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: This service was last inspected on 25 May and 15 July 2016 and was rated good overall and in every key question. The report was published 30 August 2016.

Why we inspected: This inspection was scheduled based on the registration date of the service.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the intelligence we receive about the service. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

The inspection was announced and was carried out on 25 May and 15 July 2016 by one inspector. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location provides a supported living and domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure that someone would be available in the office.

There was a registered manager in place at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.

People told us they felt the service was safe. Staff and the registered manager had received safeguarding training and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the provider’s safeguarding policy and explain the action they would take if they identified any concerns.

The risks relating to people’s health and welfare were assessed and these were recorded along with actions identified to reduce those risks in the least restrictive way. They were personalised and provided sufficient information to allow staff to protect people whilst promoting their independence.

People were supported by staff who had received an induction into the service and appropriate training, professional development and supervision to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.

There were suitable systems in place to ensure the safe storage and administration of medicines. Medicines were administered by staff who had received appropriate training and assessments. People were supported to access healthcare professionals such as GPs, occupational therapists, and community nurses when necessary.

Staff were aware of legislation designed to protect people’s rights and ensure decisions were the least restrictive and made in their best interests.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and were sensitive to their individual choices and treated them with dignity and respect. People were encouraged and supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs and to develop and maintain daily living skills such as cooking.

People were involved in discussions about their care and support planning, which reflected their assessed needs. Staff were responsive to people’s communication styles and gave people information and choices in ways that they could understand.

There were opportunities for people to become involved in developing the service and they were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided both informally and through an annual questionnaire. They were also supported to raise complaints should they wish to.

People told us they felt the service was well-led and were positive about the registered manager, who understood the responsibilities of their role. Staff were aware of the provider’s vision and values, how they related to their work and spoke positively about the culture and management of the home.

There were systems in place to monitor quality and safety of the service. Accidents and incidents were monitored, analysed and acted upon if necessary to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

This is a summary of what people told us and what we found.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and comfortable when they were with their support workers. They were satisfied the support workers were trained and prepared to deliver care safely. One person said their support workers were 'very good'. People were confident any concerns or complaints would be dealt with properly.

We found the service had systems in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. The service responded appropriately to allegations or suspicions of abuse.

The service carried out the necessary employment checks before staff started work and there was a robust recruitment process in place.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were satisfied with the care and support they received. People said, 'I get lots of support' and 'They are very good to us'.

We found people's care and support were based on individual assessments and personalised support plans. A system was in place to ensure care and support were delivered according to people's plans. Risk assessments were in place to maintain people's safety and welfare.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service told us they got on well with their support workers and had a good relationship with them. They said they were involved in decisions about their care and support, and the service helped them to be independent and involved in the community.

Staff we spoke with were motivated to provide high quality care. They had a thorough knowledge of people's needs and how they preferred to have their care delivered. The service continued to support people by telephone when they were temporarily away from home.

Is the service responsive?

People told us they had been involved in their own assessments and support planning, and that their views and preferences were taken into account. They told us staff listened and responded to changes in their support needs. People were confident the service would deal with any complaint if they needed to make one.

We found the service responded appropriately to complaints, incidents and accidents.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us they were supported to deliver high quality care. They were able to contact a duty manager if required at any time of the day or night. They said there was an open, 'no blame', culture in which they were able to raise concerns and make suggestions.

Systems were in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service provided. Risks were assessed and appropriate action plans were in place. There were processes in place to record, review and learn from incidents, accidents and complaints.