• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Weavers Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

St Nicholas Street, Coventry, West Midlands, CV1 4BP (024) 7622 2467

Provided and run by:
Weavers Care Home

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

1 September 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 31 August and 1 September 2016. The first day of our visit was unannounced.

The Weavers Care Home is a residential home which provides care and accommodation for older people, and people who live with dementia. The home provides care for a maximum of 28 people. At the time of our visit there were 27 people who lived at the 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 our previous inspection in October 2014, we found the home had not sent us the notifications of deaths, and incidents and accidents they were required to. We also found that people who did not have capacity and who had been deprived of their liberty had not been authorised to do so by the local authority. This meant the home had breached the regulations. Since our last inspection visit, the registered manager ensured we had been notified as required, and had taken the necessary action to request authorisation of people’s deprivation of liberty from the local authority.

Staff and people understood safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff followed people’s individual risk assessments to ensure they minimised any identified risks to people’s health and social care.

Checks were mostly carried out prior to staff starting work at the service to reduce the risk of employing unsuitable staff. There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe, and staff had received suitable training to help them meet people’s needs effectively.

Medicines were mostly administered safely to people, and people had good access to health care professionals when required.

People enjoyed activities within the home, and were supported to take part in hobbies or activities that interested them such as going out to the pub, knitting, singing and arts and crafts.

People received care and support which was tailored to their individual needs. They could choose their meals and enjoyed the food provided, and where needed, were given good support to eat and drink.

Staff were motivated to work with people who lived at The Weavers Care Home. People and staff enjoyed good relationships with each other which were supportive, friendly, and caring.

The registered manager and provider were open and accessible to both people and staff. There were sufficient informal and formal monitoring systems to ensure quality of service was maintained. Some of the formal systems had not been carried out but this had not compromised the quality of care provided.

People and their relatives knew how to complain, although there had been no formal complaints since 2013.

13 October 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 13 October 2014 and was unannounced.

Weavers Care Home provides care for older people and people with dementia. The home can provide support to a maximum of 30 people. On the day of our visit 26 people were living there. There are three floors with a passenger lift to each floor. The ground floor has a large lounge area, a smaller lounge and a dining room. 

The home 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The manager had not sent all the statutory notifications required to the Care Quality Commission. These are notifications to inform us of deaths and incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who live at the home. The manager had sent notifications to us about allegations of abuse, but told us they did not know of their other legal responsibilities.

Care planning records did not provide clear instructions to staff about risks relating to people’s care and there was insufficient information provided to staff about when to give ‘as required’ medicines. Staff did not respond in a timely way to calls bells linked to adaptations, to alert staff to potential risks.

Staff received support from the provider and manager to enable them to provide effective care to people. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), however we did not see mental capacity assessments for people who had dementia. We also saw one person in the home who demonstrated a desire to leave but who was kept in the home in their best interest. An application for a DoLS had not been sent to the supervisory body and this meant they were not meeting the requirements of the law.  

People who lived at Weavers Care Home and the staff who supported them, thought people who lived at the home were safe. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm.

We saw people received a good choice of food and drink, and people’s individual food requirements were well catered for. People enjoyed the home cooked food provided.

People’s health needs were well met. The manager ensured people were referred to the appropriate health care professional when concerns about their care and well-being were identified.

Staff treated people with kindness. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and supported people with respect and ensured people’s dignity was maintained. People felt comfortable in expressing their views to staff and were actively involved in day to day decisions in the home.

The provider employed two people to support people with the activities, hobbies and interests.  We saw people engaged in group activities and individual interests were well supported.

The manager and provider were seen to have good relationships with people. People felt able to informally talk to them about any concerns or issues they had.

People and staff told us there was an open culture in the home. They were able to talk with both the manager and provider about any issues or concerns they had.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

Following our inspection of Weavers Care Home on May 2nd 2013 we asked the provider to take steps to ensure unused medication was being disposed of properly. This was because on the day of our visit the home could not fully evidence this as a number of returns documents were not dated or signed. We asked the provider to send us a report explaining what action they had taken to become compliant with Regulation 13, Management of medicines.

The report from the provider showed us that a number of measures had been put in place.

They showed us a revised audit form they had put in place. This included a highlighted check on the signing and dating of all medication returns.

They also included details of a revised medication procedure clarifying how medications were to be ordered, checked and returns made.

The report also included a record of discussion with the pharmacy service. This showed Weavers Care Home had communicated the need for proper audit procedures to other parties involved in the process. This included positive comments from the pharmacy service about procedures and records of Weavers Care Home.

We spoke with the member of staff responsible for medication on 23 August 2013 by telephone. They were able to detail confirm the new audit procedures and confirm that they were ensuring that medication returns were recorded properly.

2 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited the home unannounced. We spoke with nine people who lived at the home, three relatives who visited that day and four members of the care staff, including the senior care worker on duty. We also spoke with Mr. Weaver, the owner of the business.

People in the home and relatives who visited were very complimentary about the home. 'People are very happy here", ' Staff care about them', 'Excellent' and 'People are well looked after' were among the things people told us.

We observed interactions in the home and looked at a sample of care records. We saw staff being attentive to needs and showing a good awareness of people's needs and wishes. We saw lots of activities taking place with the support of three activities staff. One relative told us 'lots of different activities take place ' people join in or may enjoy watching.'

One relative told us that the manager was 'accommodating' and 'approachable.'

We also looked at how the home administered and recorded medication. Although this was generally well managed, the home did not satisfactorily demonstrate that it disposed of unused medication properly.

12 April 2012

During a routine inspection

Although there were a number of people asleep at times, generally people were alert and involved in their surroundings, with a pleasantly 'busy' atmosphere much in evidence. This was helped greatly by the availability of care staff and activity staff to keep people alert and stimulated.

We spoke with around a dozen people living at the home, and although some had comments concerning their own personal circumstances, people were generally appreciative of the home and particularly the staff, their availability, and their helpfulness.

Comments from people living at the home included; 'staff don't rush in and out, 'wonderful here', 'things to do', and 'staff very good, always helpful'.

People spoke of activities and outings, and we saw staff able to engage with individual residents in other than care tasks.

We did not see any visiting relatives to speak with during our visit. We spoke with the majority of staff during our visit, and all showed a commitment and enthusiasm for their work, and our observations of interactions at the home showed a warmth and good rapport between staff and residents.