You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 October 2018

This inspection took place on 11 September 2018 and was unannounced.

Winchley Home was last inspected on 19 April 2017 and was rated as Requires Improvement. At that inspection, we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well Led to at least Good.

Winchley Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Winchley Home provides personal care for up to 41 people. At the time of our inspection, there were 35 people living there. Winchley Home provides personal care to people living with a range of health conditions, including people living with dementia.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made in all the areas identified at the previous inspection. This meant the service had met all the outstanding legal requirements from the last inspection and is now rated as Good.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. egistered 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.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from abuse. Staff were confident that if they had any concerns they would be addressed quickly by the registered manager. Risks to people had been assessed and regularly reviewed. Actions had been taken to mitigate these where necessary. Checks had been made on the environment to ensure the service was safe. Equipment to support people with their mobility, such as hoists had been checked to ensure they were fit for purpose and safe for people. The management of people’s medicines was safe and robust and people received these as the prescriber intended. People were protected from the risks associated with cross infection and the premises were clean and odour free.

There were enough staff to ensure people were safe and had their needs met in a timely way. Staff had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles and were supported by a system of induction, relevant training, one-to-one supervision and appraisals.

Staff understood their responsibilities under MCA, people's capacity had been assessed and when required best interest’s meetings had been held and recorded.

People told us that they enjoyed the food. People had a choice of meals and were supported to maintain a healthy diet in line with their choices, preferences and any healthcare needs. People's health was assessed and monitored. Staff took prompt action when they noticed any changes or decline in health. Staff worked closely with health professionals and followed guidance given to them to ensure people received safe and effective care.

Staff encouraged people to make decisions about their day-to-day care and remain as independent as possible. People's dignity and privacy was maintained by staff. People told us staff were kind and caring. Staff maintained people's dignity and encouraged choice. Staff supported people to maintain friendships and relationships. People's friends and family could visit when they wanted with no restriction to this.

There was a programme of meaningful activities available for people to enjoy. Care records were personalised detailed how people wished to be supported. They provided clear information to enable staff to provide appropriate and effective care and support. Risks were clearly identified and included guidance for staff on the actions they should take to minimise any risk of harm.

Information about how to complain wa

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 October 2018

The service was safe

Improvements had been made in the assessment and monitoring of risks to people. There was clear guidance for staff to follow to reduce the risk. Accidents and incidents were recorded and action was taken to reduce the risk of a reoccurrence.

Staff had attended safeguarding training and had a clear understanding of abuse, how to protect people and who to report to if they had any concerns.

Medicines were managed safely and people received these as the prescriber intended.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 October 2018

The service was effective

People were supported to access healthcare support. People's individual needs were met by the adaptations made at the home.

Staff had the relevant skills and knowledge to deliver care and support to people they supported. Training was provided regularly.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 October 2018

The service was caring

Staff provided the support people wanted, by respecting their choices and enabling people to make decisions about their care. Staff were kind and caring to people.

People's dignity was protected and staff offered assistance discretely when it was needed. Staff supported people in a way that promoted their independence.

People were supported to maintain relationships with their family and friends.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 October 2018

The service was responsive

People received personalised care and were included in decisions about their care and support. Care plans detailed the information that staff needed to support people and identified their preferences.

People enjoyed a wide range of activities which included members of the local community.

A complaints policy and procedure was in place and available to people. Feedback from people was sought and their views were listened to and acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 October 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager had implemented widespread improvements which had driven up the quality of the provision of care. People living at the home and staff working there had found there to be significant improvements.

People, relatives and staff were asked their views on the service provided.

There was an open and transparent culture. The registered manager was well regarded by people, relatives and staff.

Notifications had been submitted to the Care Quality Commission in line with guidance.