We carried out a review of the data available to us about Wellpark 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 Wellpark, you can give feedback on this service.
Wellpark provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at Wellpark.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.
As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.
The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.
The service provided safe care to people. One person commented: “The staff keep me safe. I would speak to them if I was worried.” Medicines were safely managed on people’s behalf.
Care files were personalised to reflect people’s personal preferences. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the care and treatment which was right for them.
Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. Staff treated people with dignity and respect when helping them with daily living tasks. The service ensured people led meaningful and fulfilled lives.
There were effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place. People received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and competent.
Staff spoke positively about communication and how the registered manager worked well with them and encouraged their professional development.
A number of methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received and continuous improvements were made in response to the findings.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: The last rating for this service was Good (report published in March 2017).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Wellpark on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
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.
Why the service is rated Good.
People remained safe at the home. There were adequate numbers of suitable staff to meet the needs of the people living there and to spend time socialising with them. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People received their medicines safely.
People continued to receive effective care because staff had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. People’s healthcare needs were monitored by the staff and people had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. People were supported to have maximum 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.
The home continued to provide a caring service to people. People told us, and we observed that staff were kind and patient. One person told us “I do like living here. I don’t want to leave Wellpark.” Another person said “It’s so nice here. They do nice food. There are menus in the kitchen of the foods we chose.” People were involved in decisions about the care and support they received as far as they were able.
The service remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Care and support was personalised to each person which ensured they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. Complaints were fully investigated and responded to.
The service continued to be well led. There was a new manager in post who was in the process of applying for registration. People told us the new manager was supportive and approachable. The registered manager and provider sought people’s views to make sure people were at the heart of any changes within the home. A member of staff said “(Manager’s name) has been fantastic. He is the strongest manager I have worked with, and the most supportive.” The new manager and provider had monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The inspection took place on 26 and 27 November 2014 and was unannounced. We previously inspected the service on 1 May 2013 when we found the service was compliant with all regulations covered in the inspection.
Wellpark is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to eight adults who have learning disabilities. At the time of this inspection there were six people living at Wellpark.
A new manager was appointed in March 2014 and their registration was confirmed on 11 June 2014. 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.
We saw and heard examples of how people’s lives had improved significantly as a result of the support and understanding from staff. People were helped to gain confidence and greater independence. Staff had sought good practice advice and guidance from other professionals and through research, and this had been used when assessing, reviewing and planning people’s care and support needs. People had become calmer and happier, and the number of incidents where people had become agitated or angry had reduced significantly.
People who were able to communicate verbally told us why Wellpark was such a special place for them. For example, for one person it was very important that we understood what Wellpark meant for them. They told us “I am happy here. I don’t want to leave here. I do feel safe here.” They also told us “I like the staff. The staff understand.” Another person told us “The staff are caring – if they are down I cheer them up and vice versa.”
People told us they felt safe. Staff had received training and guidance to ensure they knew how to recognise the signs of harm or abuse, and the actions they should take if abuse was suspected. There was a culture of learning from mistakes and analysing incidents and accidents to improve safety and reduce risks.
Medicines were stored and administered safely. The registered manager found there had been a number of medicine errors in the past. They analysed the mistakes and looked for the root cause. This resulted in a number of improvements including the creation of a new medicine storage room. This meant all medicines could be stored neatly and efficiently and created a quiet space where staff could concentrate on medicines administration and recording. They had found that by placing an emphasis on getting it right, and encouraging staff to speak up immediately they noticed a potential error, such as a missed signature, the number of errors had reduced significantly.
People were encouraged to administer their own medication, where needed with staff support. Where people lacked capacity to manage their own medicine or to consent to medicines being administered staff consulted with all relevant professionals and advocates, for example through a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation, to ensure they were acting in the person’s best interests.
Safe procedures were followed when recruiting new staff. People living in the home were actively encouraged to take part in decisions about staff recruitment. All staff received induction and ongoing training on a range of topics relevant to the needs of people living there. Staff were supervised and supported. Staff were positive and told us they enjoyed working at Wellpark.
The home was well maintained, comfortable, clean and homely throughout. There were systems in place to make sure the home was safe, such as fire safety checks and training. People were involved and consulted in the decoration of the home. For example, after consultation with people living in the home and the staff team they planned to re-fit the kitchen in the near future to make it more accessible and safer for people to use. There were maintenance plans in place showing future plans for improvements to the home.
Staff used their knowledge and skills to help people overcome problems and to make positive differences to their lives. They actively encouraged ‘positive risk taking’. Care plans provided detailed information on every aspect of each person’s support needs. All needs and risks had been carefully assessed and clear instructions had been drawn up to ensure staff understood exactly how each person wanted to be supported. Where people had limited verbal communication skills there was detailed information to staff on how to understand and communicate with the person. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of each person’s needs.
The service was well led. The provider’s stated main aim is to enable and support people to move forward independently and achieve what they want with their lives. They recognised the importance of putting people first and tailoring services to each person’s individual needs. Their staff training package was drawn up as a result of learning from the people who used their service. They said they recognised that those people were the experts in how their services worked. There was a range of systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. People were consulted and involved in the daily routines. Regular residents meeting were held. The registered manager and staff were constantly seeking advice and research to help them improve the service.
We found that since the last inspection in December 2012 the home had begun to take action to ensure people's consent was sought and recorded for all of their care and treatment needs. We also found that the appropriate professionals had been consulted and involved when best interest decisions were considered necessary.
We saw that staff understood people's care needs. This was because care plans were in the process of being rewritten in a new format and people's needs, and any risks, had been fully assessed and had been met. A person we spoke with said they were very happy with the support they received and told us 'I like it here.'
The home was well maintained, comfortably furnished and decorated and there were plans to redecorate and make improvements to the enviroment. There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place to ensure they only recruited staff who were suitable for the post. People living in the home were given information and support to help them make a complaint and there was an effective system to manage and act upon complaints.
People experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights, being cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. A sensory area had been created in the garden, for example, for people who spent time there who enjoyed using their sense of touch and smell. One person told us that staff responded quickly when they had a recurrent acute medical problem. The provider had also taken steps to protect people from abuse, which included giving people information to help them protect themselves.
There were effective systems to monitor the quality of the service and manage risks to the welfare of people who used the service and others such as staff. These included seeking and acting on people's views, to improve the service.
When at the home, we found evidence suggesting a personal care service was being provided from the home. As the location was not registered for this regulated activity, we have written to the provider seeking clarification of the situation.
People were involved in the running of the home, such as choosing every day what the meals were going to be, and interviewing prospective staff. Efforts were made to give people information in a form suited to their particular needs so that it could be used by them. This included pictures of meals to help them express their choice of meal. A disco was held every week-end as a result of people's suggestions, and they told us about other activities they enjoyed. One liked their local weekly art class very much, and another told us they enjoyed baking. Someone spoke about planning a holiday, using the home's computer with a staff member. We spoke with one person who went to church locally. Thus people were enabled to be part of the wider community.
One person had recently moved into more self-contained accommodation within the home, with the aim of the person becoming more independent. The person they told us they were happy with this, and they now made their own breakfast for example.
We found the service acted to identify and meet people's various individual needs and preferences. Care records did not always show how decisions about their best interests were made, or if people had been involved in reviews of their care. However, as a result of new external management of the home, new documentation was to be used which would address this.
We saw people approached staff freely, with staff always available near them and who responded promptly and politely. One person we spoke with told us they liked living at the home, and confirmed that they felt safe there. People indicated that if they were unhappy about something they would speak with staff or their family.
One person recalled completing a survey for the home, and told us that staff listened to what they said, when we asked about how the home got their views on the care and support they received. Residents' meetings were held regularly. Suggestions made by people were followed up and people were informed of any planned changes, with an explanation about why the change was occurring. Their concerns were listened to and responded to. For example, when someone had made a comment about a peer during a residents' meeting, they were given the opportunity to discuss this later, away from the general meeting.
Areas of the home looked less homely and more institutionalised than other areas. We were told there was ongoing redecoration and refurbishment to address this. One person who lived at the home confirmed they had helped to choose the wallpaper for the newly decorated lounge, and that they found the new lounge settees comfortable.