You are here

Revitalise Netley Waterside House Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 July 2018

This inspection took place on 12 and 13 June 2018 and was unannounced.

Revitalise Netley Waterside House is one of three centres provided by Revitalise Respite Holidays, a national charity providing respite care and short breaks in a holiday setting for guest’s living with either a physical disability, learning disability, sensory impairment or dementia. The service provides 24-hour nursing care for those that need this. People staying at the service were referred to as guests and their informal carers as companions so throughout the remainder of the report we have used the same terminology. The service can accommodate up to 39 guests, although at the time of our inspection there were 21 guests and nine companions staying. The theme of the week was ‘Historic Hampshire’. One guest lived at the centre permanently.

The registered manager had recently left the service. A new manager had been appointed and was due to start at the service in July 2018. In the interim the service was being supported by the operations team. 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.

Improvements had been made to ensure that risks to guest’s health and wellbeing were assessed and planned for.

Guests’ needs were assessed, however, some of the holiday care plans needed to be more detailed. The care guests received did not always reflect the needs identified in the assessment.

The design of the premises was suitable for the guests, although some aspects of the fixtures and fittings were tired and worn and needed repair or decoration. A programme of renovation was underway.

Staff sought guest’s consent before providing care however, we have made some recommendations about the need for documentation regarding consent to be reviewed.

Infection control risks were effectively managed.

There were systems in place to manage medicines safely.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults, and understood the types of abuse and neglect.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to support guests appropriately.

Guests were supported to eat and drink according to their preferences.

Technology was used to support the effective delivery of care and support.

Guests were cared for by staff who were kind and caring and were treated with dignity and respect.

Despite the short-term nature of guests’ stay within the service, the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the guests and could explain to us their individual needs and requirements.

Overall, guests received person centred care that was responsive to their needs.

Guests took part in a suitable range of excursions and activities.

Information on how to make a complaint was readily available within the service.

Staff felt well supported and reported a positive culture and improved communication.

There were effective quality monitoring systems to monitor the quality of the care guests received.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 July 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to guest’s health and wellbeing were assessed and planned for.

Infection control risks were effectively managed.

There were systems in place to manage medicines safely.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults, and understood the types of abuse and neglect.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 21 July 2018

The service was not always effective.

Guests’ needs were assessed, however, some of the holiday care plans needed to be more detailed. The care guests received did not always reflect the needs identified in the assessment.

The design of the premises was suitable for the guests, although some aspects of the fixtures and fittings were tired and worn and needed repair or decoration. A programme of renovation was underway.

Staff sought guest’s consent before providing care however, we have made some recommendations about the need for documentation regarding consent to be reviewed.

Staff received training, supervision and an induction which ensured they had the skills and knowledge to support guests appropriately.

Guests were supported to eat and drink according to their preferences.

Technology was used to support the effective delivery of care and support.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 July 2018

The service was caring.

Guests were cared for by staff who were kind and caring and were treated with dignity and respect.

Despite the short-term nature of guests’ stay within the service, the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the guests and could explain to us their individual needs and requirements.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 July 2018

The service was responsive.

Overall, guests received person centred care that was responsive to their needs.

Guests took part in a suitable range of excursions and activities.

Information on how to make a complaint was readily available within the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 July 2018

The service was well led.

Staff felt well supported and reported a positive culture and improved communication.

There were effective quality monitoring systems to monitor the quality of the care guests received.