We carried out a review of the data available to us about Wold Haven 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 Wold Haven, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Systems were in place to isolate people with COVID-19 to minimise transmission. The service had good supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) that were readily available in stations throughout the service.
Staff maintained social distancing where possible and the environment promoted people to remain socially distanced.
Staff had received update training on how to keep people safe during the COVID-19 pandemic and were regularly tested in line with the government's current testing programme.
The environment was very clean and additional cleaning was taking place including frequently touched surfaces. Clinical waste bins were positioned so that staff could access them when required.
At the time of our visit the service was closed for non-essential visitor's. A visitor's protocol was in place to ensure anyone entering the service was temperature tested, completed hand disinfection and provided with information to remain safe during their visit.
At the last inspection in March 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People told us they felt safe and well cared for. Staff received safeguarding training and knew how to report any concerns.
Staff had been recruited safely and there were enough staff to assist people in a timely way. The arrangements for supporting people with their medicines were safe.
Staff received a comprehensive range of training and their competence in the role was routinely assessed. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People received appropriate support with their nutritional needs. People had very good access to a range of health services; there were effective links with the local GP practice and healthcare professionals visited the home on a daily basis.
People and relatives said staff were caring and we observed them to be kind, attentive and friendly. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to be independent, and the support provided to people accessing the ‘hub beds’ in particular had enabled many people to regain their independence and return home to living independently. This had been achieved by excellent partnership working with other agencies.
People received personalised care. Staff were knowledgeable about each person’s needs and preferences. There was a good range of activities and people were supported to access the local community.
People told us the home was well-managed. There was a registered manager who was supported by three senior care officers. The quality assurance system in place included the completion of regular audits to check the quality and safety of care people received. People and staff were asked for their views and their suggestions were used to continuously improve the service.
The inspection took place on 26 March 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection was on 6 May 2013 when the service met all of the relevant requirements.
Wold Haven is registered to provide care and support for up to 43 older people in the market town of Pocklington in East Yorkshire. The service has two units with accommodation and other facilities provided on the ground floor. One unit has 37 bedrooms and the second is a six bedded re-ablement unit with facilities for short term care for people who need support to return home or to prevent an admission to hospital or respite care. There is also a courtyard and large garden.
At the time of the inspection there was a person registered with the CQC as the manager of the service. However, we were told that the person had recently left the home and there was a new manager in post who was in the process of applying to be the registered manager. They had commenced in their role the week 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.
The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) legislation which is designed to ensure that the human rights of people who may lack capacity to make decisions are protected. The majority of staff had completed training on the MCA and discussions indicated that there was a clear understanding of the principles of the MCA and DoLS.
People told us they felt safe living in the home. We found people were supported to reduce risks in their lives through risk assessments and staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs.
People were supported by staff who were correctly recruited, although not everyone felt there were enough staff. Staff received training and supervision to help make sure they could adequately support people.
People were supported by staff who were caring, polite and compassionate. People felt staff respected their privacy.
People were supported to have their needs met through a system of care planning. Not everyone could remember being consulted about this.
People received support to help make sure their dietary and health needs were met. This included when necessary accessing other health professionals.
People had given written consent to receive support when having their medication needs met in the home.
The manager was new in post but knew the home well. The service worked with other professionals to develop areas of support for people.
There were quality assurance systems in the home to help make sure people were consulted. However, not everyone could recall being asked their opinion of the home.
We saw that care needs were discussed with people and/or their relatives and before people received care their consent was asked for. One person said 'They did ask me about what my needs were'.
During our visit we saw that the home looked clean and tidy. It had a homely environment and people seemed content in the home. People told us they were well cared for. A person said 'The care is very good, I can't grumble'. Another person told us 'It's very nice here, the food is very good'. The visiting health professional told us they thought the cleanliness of the home was fine and that communication with the staff about the care of people who used the service was very good.
There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.
There was a complaints procedure in place at the home. The people we spoke with knew what to do if they had any concerns. The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.
We saw people living in the home were at ease with the members of staff supporting them and the atmosphere was calm and unhurried. A visiting healthcare professional said of the staff 'they are an excellent team. I can't speak highly enough of the care they offer here.'
Surveys completed by people who received treatment from the re-ablement beds service showed they were happy with the service provided. They felt they were given enough information about their treatment options and were able to ask all the questions they wanted to. One person had commented 'all in all this stay has given me self confidence and my treatment was second to none.'
They found the staff friendly and said they were treated with respect and their privacy was maintained.