We carried out a review of the data available to us about Wordsley Hall on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Wordsley Hall, you can give feedback on this service.
Wordsley hall is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 41 older people, some of whom live with dementia. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 38 people. The care home accommodates people in one adapted building.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were safely supported by staff and systems were in place to identity and minimise risks to their safety and wellbeing. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who knew people well. Systems were in place to ensure lessons were learnt following any accidents or incidents that occurred at the home to reduce risks to people.
People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and support to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff were knowledgeable about people, and how best to support them. Staff worked in partnership with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met.
People, as much as practicably possible, had choice and control of their lives and staff were aware of how to support them in the least restrictive way and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People and relatives made positive comments about the staff that supported them. Staff were described as friendly caring, down to earth and people and relatives spoke about the positive atmosphere in the home. People were treated with respect and dignity and their independence was promoted. People were supported to participate in meaningful activities.
Peoples were involved in the development of their care plans which reflected their needs and preferences. People and relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt confident any issues would be addressed.
People, relatives and staff thought the service was managed well and in people’s best interests. The registered manager was described as approachable, kind, open and transparent in the way they managed the service. Systems were in place to monitor the delivery of the service and to gain feedback from people and relatives to continuously improve the service provided. All the required improvements from our last inspection had been made.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 8 March 2019).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
At our last inspection on the 24 March 2016 we rated the service ‘Good’. At this inspection we found improvements needed to be made to ensure a consistent quality of care and the rating is now ‘Requires Improvement’. We found quality assurance audits were not effective in identifying areas for improvement. For example, a window was not secure enough to ensure there was not a potential risk of people falling from the window and staff did not always administer medicines as prescribed.
Wordsley Hall is registered to provide accommodation and support for up to 41 people who have conditions related to old age and/or dementia. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. On the day of our inspection there were 36 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 service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ for the ‘safe’ question at this inspection. While staff received training so they knew how to keep people safe from harm. Medicines were not always administered to people as it was prescribed. There was sufficient staff employed to support people safely and the provider had safe recruitment procedures.
People continued to receive an effective service. People’s needs were assessed so their preferences, likes and dislikes could be met. Staff had access to support so they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. The provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People could eat and drink sufficient amounts to ensure they maintained good health.
People continued to receive support from staff that was kind and caring. People were supported to make choices and decisions about the support they received. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was respected.
People continued to receive a responsive service. People were involved in the assessment and care planning process. People could take part in activities that met their individual preferences and hobbies. The provider had a complaints process in place to people could share concerns when needed.
The service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ for the ‘well led’ question at this inspection. The quality assurance systems and audits were not always effective in identifying areas of concern.
People could share their views by completing a provider questionnaire.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The manager was registered with us as is required by law. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.
Medicines were given appropriately, however they were not kept as they should be, with some people’s medicines becoming mixed up and being stored in the wrong boxes. A very small number of medicines were also missing without explanation. Medicines were disposed of as expected.
A suitable amount of staff on duty with the skills, experience and training in order to meet people’s needs and people told us that this made them feel safe.
People were able to raise any concerns they had and felt confident they would be acted upon. People and their relatives understood the complaints procedure and felt that they would be listened to should they need to complain.
People’s ability to make important decisions was considered in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff interacted with people in a positive manner and their consent was sought where possible.
People were supported to take sufficient food and the food was healthy and well balanced. Drinks were given when required and people were well hydrated and their health needs were met.
Staff maintained people’s privacy and dignity whilst encouraging them to remain as independent as possible.
People and staff spoke positively about the approachable nature and leadership skills of the registered manager. Structures for supervision, allowing staff to understand their roles, and responsibilities were in place.
Systems for updating and reviewing risk assessments and care plans to reflect people’s level of support needs and any potential related risks were effective.
Quality assurance audits were undertaken regularly and the provider gave the registered manager support.
Notifications were sent to us as required, so that we could be aware of how any incidents had been responded to.
All of the people we spoke with said they were very happy with the service they were receiving and how their needs were being met. One person said, 'I'm quite happy, they're very good.'
There was a good choice of food which was prepared freshly on the premises. All of the people we spoke with said that they enjoyed the food. If people did not want what was on the menu they could choose something else. Where people were at risk of not eating or drinking sufficient amounts, their food and drink intake were monitored.
Appropriate arrangements were in place for all aspects of medicines management. Those included procedures for obtaining, storing, administering and monitoring people's medicines. We found that systems were followed by staff which ensured people's medicines were handled safely.
During our inspection we saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to fulfil the needs of the people they were caring for. We did not witness anybody having to wait to have their needs catered for. One person said, 'They are lovely.'
We found that people we spoke with knew how to raise a complaint or a concern and were confident that should they do so, that action would be taken to address them.
We saw that people's needs were being planned, delivered and met by staff who had the relevant skills to look after people safely. We saw examples where staff supported people to take their medication. We heard staff giving reassurance and people responded to this positively.
There was effective recruitment and selection processes in place to ensure that peoples needs were being meet by a skilled workforce. We saw that people's views were sought and listened to and there were systems in place to monitor how the home was run to ensure people received a quality service.