You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The inspection took place on 15 March 2018 and was unannounced. The last inspection was undertaken on 21 January 2016 when the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Wilfred Geere House is a care home which provides a respite service. There are also some ‘discharge from hospital’ step down beds, the aim of which is to help people to return to their own home or move in to other care settings. At the time of the inspection there was one person at the home on a long term placement. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Wilfred Geere House accommodates up to 30 people in one adapted building.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 we spoke with told us they felt safe at Wilfred Geere House. There were appropriate safeguarding policies in place and staff had undertaken training.

Staff had been safely recruited. Staffing levels were flexible and there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

Systems for the handling of medicines were safe. Individual and general risk assessments were in place and health and safety records were complete and up to date. Infection control procedures were adhered to throughout the home.

People were given a thorough assessment of needs prior to admission and care files included relevant information around health needs and personal preferences. The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Monitoring charts for issues such as food and fluid intake were completed as required. Nutritional requirements were recorded and adhered to and people were given choices with regard to meal options.

Staff were given a thorough induction and training was on-going. Staff supervisions, appraisals and observations of practice were undertaken on a regular basis.

Throughout the day we witnessed staff interacting with kindness, patience and respect with people who used the service. Staff demonstrated a commitment to preserving people’s dignity.

People who used the service and their relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support. This involvement was documented in their care files.

There was a welcome leaflet which included an invitation to look around the home prior to the person’s stay. There was a confidentiality policy which was appropriate and up to date. People’s records were stored securely.

Care plans were person centred and preferences and choices were documented within the files. A range of activities occurred during the day and arrangements were in place to ensure people’s religious and cultural needs could be met.

There was an appropriate complaints system, where any concerns or complaints were logged and follow up actions documented. Questionnaires were given to all users of the service and their families to complete on discharge. The service had received a number of thank you cards and compliments.

There was an end of life champion and a number of staff had undertaken training in end of life care.

Staff told us they felt supported by management at the home.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and the log included details of the incident, the impact and outcome.

Staff meetings took place on a regular basis. The registered manager and managers of the other 'in-house' services in Bolton regularly met to share ideas and initiatives.

A number of regular audits were undertaken. We saw that issues were identified and actions recorded appropriately.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remains Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remains Good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remains Good.