You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Wyncroft House. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Reports


Inspection carried out on 14 July 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 14 and 17 July 2017 and was unannounced.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 20 and 21 June 2016 at which a breach of legal requirements was found. This related to there not being systems in place to show how staff were being supported and how the quality of the service was being managed and checked.

We carried out a further inspection on 19 October 2016 to look at how the provider had made improvements in response to the breach of legal requirements. At this inspection we found that the provider had taken appropriate actions to ensure systems were in place for staff to be supported and the appropriate audits, checks and monitoring of the service were in place.

Wyncroft House can provide accommodation for up to 38 people who require nursing and personal care. People lived in one of two units within the home. On the day of the inspection there were 25 people living in the nursing unit and 9 people living in the residential dementia unit.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People felt safe in the home. Staff had been safely recruited and had received the appropriate training to provide them with the skills to meet people’s needs and manage risks to them on a daily basis.

New systems were in place to ensure staff deployed across the home were able to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. People were supported to receive their medicines as prescribed by their doctor.

Staff received the training and support they required in order to meet people’s needs safely and effectively. People’s human rights were respected by staff because staff applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in their work practice.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and have access to a variety of healthcare professionals in order to meet their needs.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff helped people make choices about their care and their views were respected.

People were involved in the planning of their care to ensure staff had the information they needed to support people the way they wished to be supported.

Information was collected regarding people’s interests and how they wished to spend their day. Activity co-ordinators were in post to support people to take part in activities that were of interest to them.

Where complaints had been raised they were investigated and responded to appropriately. People were confident that if they did raise any concerns they would be listened to and acted upon.

People considered the service to be well led. Staff felt supported and listened to and were given the opportunity to make contributions to the running of the service.

People were supported by staff who were well motivated and knew what was required of them. There were a number of quality assurance audits in place to assess the ongoing quality of the service provided. Where audits identified areas for improvement, action plans were in place.

Inspection carried out on 19 October 2016

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

Our focused follow up inspection was unannounced and took place on 17 October 2016.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 20 and 21 June 2016. A breach of legal requirements were found. These related to there not being systems in place to show how staff were being supported, how the quality of the service was being managed and the quality checked. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their action plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Wyncroft House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Wyncroft House is registered to provide accommodation and support for 38 people who may have dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 37 people living at the home. There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The provider had taken appropriate actions to ensure systems were in place for staff to be supported. We found that supervisions, staff meetings and appraisals were now taking place.

Care plans were in place which showed how people wanted to be supported and the appropriate review documentation was in place.

Systems had been implemented so the appropriate audits, checks and monitoring of the service could be carried out by the registered manager and provider.

The provider was able to show evidence of their last questionnaire conducted to confirm how people were able to share their views on the service. We saw that meetings had been implemented so people could share their views about the service on a more regular basis.

Inspection carried out on 20 June 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 20 and 21 June 2016 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on the 10 March 2015 the provider was rated overall as Requires Improvement. We found that improvement was required in the Safe, Responsive and Well led questions.

Wyncroft House is registered to provide accommodation and support for 38 people who may have dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 36 people living at the home. There were 26 people living in the nursing unit and 10 people living in the residential dementia unit. There was a registered manager in post who was on holiday on the day of the inspection. 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.

People felt they were safe. Staff received the appropriate training to know how to keep people safe from harm. While people received their medicines as they wanted we found that medicines were not being stored as required. Medicines were not managed sufficiently to ensure people’s safety.

Staff were not being supported appropriately to ensure they had the right skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. People’s consent was sought before they were supported and where they lacked capacity their human rights were protected as required within the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

We were unable to evidence how people’s support needs were identified and delivered and how changes to people’s support needs were managed. There were no assessments, care plans or review documentation in place.

Staff were kind and caring towards people. People’s privacy dignity and independence was respected.

We were unable to see how activities were planned to ensure people were able to enjoy the things they like to do. The provider had a complaints process to enable people to raise any concerns they had. However the provider had no system to log complaints received.

We were unable to see documentation to show us how the quality of the service was checked or audited by the registered manager and how the provider carried out their own checks on the service.

The provider did not ensure that all notifiable events were reported to us as required by the law.

The provider did not ensure that their rating from their last inspection was displayed as is required by the law.

The deputy manager who had started in their role on the day of our inspection was unable to provide us with much of the information we requested.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Inspection carried out on 10 and 11 March 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 10 and 11 March 2015. This is the first inspection of this home under the new ownership.

Wyncroft House can provide accommodation for up to 38 people who require nursing and personal care. People lived in one of three units within the home. On the day of the inspection we were advised that there were 27 people living in the home with nursing needs, 10 of these beds were identified as ‘short stay recuperation’ beds for the care of people leaving hospital. There was a separate unit for nine people living with dementia. This unit was called ‘The Lodge’.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us that they felt safe in the home. Families told us they were confident that their relatives were kept safe in the home. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities in respect of keeping people safe and were able to tell us what they would do if they witnessed or suspected abuse.

People told us that staff worked hard in the home. A number of relatives commented that they didn’t think there were always enough staff available which may result in people having to wait longer than was acceptable in order for staff to respond to their requests for assistance.

Medicines were stored and secured appropriately. People told us and their relatives confirmed that medicines were provided in a safe way. However, we found systems and processes needed to be improved and that the auditing of the home’s medicines was not robust.

People and their families spoke positively about the care and support they received in the home. Staff told us they were well trained and that if they required any additional training, they only need ask and the manager would look into this for them. Staff told us they received regular supervision and were able to contribute to the running of the home in staff meetings.

Staff obtained consent from people before they provided care. The registered manager and staff understood the principals of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and we saw evidence that mental capacity assessments were undertaken where it was thought people were unable to make their own decisions.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them healthy. People were supported to make their own choices at mealtimes and if they didn’t want what was on offer, an alternative was provided.

People were supported to access a variety of health care professionals to ensure their health care needs were met.

People living at the home and their relatives told us they thought the staff were supportive and caring.

People had not always been involved in the planning of their care due to their capacity to make decisions. However, families spoken with told us they had been involved in the planning of their relative’s care and they were always kept informed of any changes in their care needs.

Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes. However, some people and their relatives commented to us that there was very little going on during the day. The registered manager was also aware of these concerns and was looking into developing the activities available to people living in the home.

People and their relatives told us that they were aware of who to raise any concerns or complaints with and were confident that if they needed to, they would be listened to and responded to appropriately.

People and their relatives told us that they were happy in the way the home was managed. They were complimentary about the registered manager and the deputy. The registered manager felt supported by the new owners.

The registered manager had put in place a number of audits to assess the quality of the care delivered in the home. However, not all of these systems were effective in recognising shortfalls in care delivery.