You are here

Watford House Residential Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 28 March 2019

About the service:

Watford House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service can accommodate up to 40 older people, including people living with dementia.

On the day of our inspection 38 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

The home did not have a registered manager. However, the provider had appointed a manager and they told us they had been made permanent on 1 February 2019, they were applying to be registered with the CQC.

People were not always protected from the risk of infection. We found the service was not kept clean and was not well maintained. The adaptation and design of the building did not meet people’s needs who were living with dementia. The manager had identified some of the issues as part of the quality monitoring, but the monitoring tool was not effective to ensure all issues were identified. We also found the provider had not acted on the actions identified by the manager so there was lack of governance and oversight by the provider. Although since our inspection the provider has confirmed that works will be commenced to ensure the environment is improved.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Processes and practices protected people from abuse, there were enough staff to ensure people’s needs were met. However, from talking with staff and people who used the service it was not clear if staff were deployed effectively to meet people's needs in a timely way.

The recruitment of staff followed safe practices. Staff were supported and received effective training.

Safe medicine management procedures were in place. However, we identified some minor issues that were continually occurring. This put people at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed.

Risks to people were identified and managed in a way that did not restrict their freedom. Staff supported people to make their own decisions and choices. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable and understood the principles of The Mental Capacity Act.

People were supported to receive a nutritious and balanced diet. People spoke positively about the care and support they received. People told us staff were kind and caring, maintained their dignity and respected them.

People received care that was predominantly responsive to their needs. Care plans were developed with the people who used the service and included their decisions and choices. People were supported at the end of their lives.

There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received. People we spoke with said they had no concerns but would not hesitate to talk with staff if required.

More information in Detailed Findings below:

Rating at last inspection:

The service was previously rated good and the report was published on 16 July 2016.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating of the service. At this inspection we found the service had deteriorated and is rated requires improvement.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates based on the rating given at this inspection

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 28 March 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 28 March 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 March 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 March 2019

The service was responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 28 March 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.