Archived: Westgate College for Deaf People and the Road Project

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People's medicines were not always handled safely. Some practice needed a review as some records were not accurate. There was a lack of detailed guidance for medicine needed on a 'when needed' basis. Staff phoned the medical centre to gain permission to administer 'when needed' medication which was not satisfactory as it could cause delay. There had been several errors in the recording of administration of medicines.

During these visits we were able to answer our five questions;

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, talking to staff, the provider and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The service was not safe.

People were not protected from harm and abuse. Staff used punishments including withdrawing activities to manage behaviour that was challenging.

Restrictions were imposed without regard to people's capacity and their ability to agree or disagree with the restrictions.

Risks were not always assessed and managed placing people at risk of harm.

People were at risk from staff who did not have the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff were not properly supervised.

Medicines were not always managed and administered safely.

Staff had been vetted and checked.

Is the service effective?

The service was not effective.

There were gaps in training so staff were not trained in essential subjects as well as more specific subjects including sign language.

People were not fully involved in making decisions about their care.

People's capacity was not assessed and they were not always given the opportunity to consent to the care being given.

Is the service caring?

The service was not caring.

Not all staff were considerate and respectful to the people they supported and to each other.

People were at risk of discrimination.

Choice making was limited due to staff inability to communicate with some people. Staff made choices for people rather than with them.

Is the service responsive?

The service was not responsive.

People did not always receive the one to one support they had been assessed as needing.

Care plans and behavioural plans lacked detail and updates so staff did not have clear guidance on how to give the right support.

When concerns were raised they were not always acted on.

Is the service well-led?

The service was not well led.

The culture of the staff was not inclusive and open but one of control.

Staff practice had gone unchecked and had been abusive at times.

There was not good leadership or management over the nine houses.

Audits and checks were infrequent and unreliable. There was no overall scrutiny of staff practice.

Procedures had not always been followed leading to continued risks.

We observed staff supporting people who used the service in a respectful way and saw staff taking time to explain where possible, the options available and involving people in making choices. Through direct observations, discussions with staff and records we viewed, we saw that the service actively encouraged people to be members of the wider community. The service provided imaginative and varied opportunities for people to develop and maintain social, emotional, communication and independent living skills.

People who used the service told us what it was like to live at this service and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. People said that they were happy with the care they received and that their needs were being met in all areas. They said that the staff treated them with respect, listened to them and supported them to raise any concerns they had about their care. People told us that the service had responded to their health needs quickly and that staff had talked to them regularly about their plan of care and any changes that may be needed.

We received many complimentary comments about the service. One person said 'I like living here staff are very good to me'. Another person said 'Staff are brilliant. If you need help staff are there for you'. Other people were complimentary of the food and had no concerns about the quality of care. Another person when asked if he could talk to someone if he was unhappy said 'I am very happy here, but if I wasn't I would talk to someone'.

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. People told us they were happy with the food and liked the meals.

Regular health and safety checks took place to ensure the safety of people using the service. Information about peoples' experiences had also been asked for and gathered in such a way to allow for monitoring of risks and the quality of care delivery.

We found that staff understood the needs of people including those who were unable to communicate verbally by use of objects of reference, sign language, body language and behaviour.

During our visit we were supported by staff to speak with two people that used the service. We also spoke to ten members of staff including the manager.

We saw that people were given choice and independence and observed that people were treated with dignity and respect.

We saw that there were a number of activities that people enjoyed and people told us they were happy with the support they received.

We saw that staff were well trained and supported and that safeguarding issues were understood.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.