Weybourne

We found the following examples of good practice.

The registered manager ensured that appropriate guidance relating to personal protective equipment (PPE) was followed. Staff had been trained in the correct use of PPE and had access to online refresher training should that be needed. Senior care staff undertook a ‘PPE audit’ on each shift (three times per day), to ensure any concerns about PPE were addressed as they arose.

People moving into the service, or returning from a stay in hospital or elsewhere, were isolated for 14 days to reduce the risk of infection transmission. If people found isolating difficult, they were provided with staff to support them on a one-to-one basis.

Staff, managers and people who use the service benefitted from participating in a regular regime of testing for coronavirus. At the time of our visit, heightened visitor restrictions were in place. Due to these restrictions, the service limited visits from people’s relatives and their loved ones to window visits and video calls. One area of the home had been identified as suitable for indoor visits and plans were in place for refurbishment of this area to facilitate these for when restrictions were loosened. Additionally, plans were being devised for each person who used the service to have one regular named visitor, who would also be tested for coronavirus as part of the regular staff testing programme.

The provider had measures in place to reduce staff movement between services. Weybourne had been assigned 10 staff from the provider’s pool of bank care workers to work solely at the home, to fill gaps in the rota due to staff sickness and leave.

In response to the increased risk of infection, the registered manager had introduced an additional cleaning shift each day to ensure more frequent surface cleaning and more regular deep cleaning of all areas within the home. The home was very clean when we visited.

The registered manager had given consideration to the layout of the furniture within the home, to facilitate social distancing. Activities were offered to people more frequently than previously, in smaller groups to ensure people were provided with opportunities for social and mental stimulation.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Weybourne provides accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people and specialises in caring for people living with dementia. There were 32 people using the service at the time of the inspection. 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.

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 told us they felt safe. There were appropriate adult safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and staff were aware of the action to take if they had any concerns. Staff knew about the home’s whistleblowing procedure and told us they would use it if required. Risks to people’s health and well-being had been assessed, and identified risks were managed safely. Medicines managed appropriately. People were protected from the risk of infection. Accidents and incidents were recorded and acted on in a timely manner. There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs. Appropriate recruitment checks were carried out before staff started work.

Staff received training, supervision and appraisals so that they were effectively able to carry out their roles. The registered manager and staff had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and staff asked for people’s consent before they provided care. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and had access to a range of healthcare professionals in order to maintain good health. We saw that the home had recently been refurbished and redecorated.

People told us staff were kind and respected their privacy, dignity and independence. They were involved in decisions about their care needs. People were provided with information about the service when they joined in the form of a 'service user guide' which included the home’s complaints policy.

Care plans were reflective of people's individual care needs and preferences and were reviewed on a regular basis. There were a variety of activities available for people to participate in. People were aware of the home’s complaints procedures and knew how to make a complaint. People's cultural needs and religious beliefs were recorded and they were supported to meet their individual needs.

People told us the home was well run and that the registered manager was supportive. There were effective processes in place to monitor the quality of the service. People and their relatives were provided with opportunities to provide feedback about the service.

Weybourne provides accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people and specialises in caring for people living with dementia. The home is located in Abbey Wood, Royal Borough of Greenwich, London.

At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager in post. The appointed manager was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 using the service said they felt safe and that staff were kind to them. The provider had safeguarding adults and whistleblowing policies in place and staff understood how to safeguard the people they cared for from abuse. Staff knew of the whistleblowing procedure and told us they would use it if required; however, they were confident that the management team would take action if any concerns were raised. The provider had appropriate recruitment and selection processes in place before new staff started work. Risk to people had been assessed and where risks were identified, appropriate action plans were in place to prevent or minimise the risk. People’s medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed by healthcare professionals. There were sufficient staff available on each shift to ensure people’s needs were met.

New staff were supported with induction to ensure they were familiar with the service and had appropriate skills and knowledge to undertake the job they were employed for. Staff received regular training and supervision to support their professional development. The care staff and management team demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts for their wellbeing. People had access to relevant healthcare professionals that ensured they received safe care and treatment. People were cared for in an environment that was clean and hygienic.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and staff promoted people’s independence where they were capable. Staff understood people’s needs in regards to their race, religion and sexual orientation and supported them in a caring way. People were supported to maintain relationships with their family and friends. People were engaged in various activities of their choice to stimulate them.

Each person using the service had a care plan in place which was reviewed monthly to ensure their individual needs were met. The provider had a complaints policy in place and people and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and this included surveys, audits and various meetings such as residents and relatives meetings. Where improvements were identified there were action plans in place and these were followed up to improve the quality of the service. All staff we spoke with told us they were happy working at the home. All health and social care professionals we spoke with complimented the standard of care being provided.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and a member of the management team was available on call in case of emergencies. Staff employed to work at the home were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people living in the home. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. Nine applications had been submitted and we found proper policies and procedures were in place to protect people and ensure their needs were met. Staff had a good understanding about adult safeguarding and they told us they would always escalate any concerns. A safeguarding policy was in place and staff attended an annual training session.

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff they understood people's care and support needs.. One person told us. "It's all very nice here. The staff look after us.' Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw the care staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. We observed this at lunch time when we saw staff feeding people at their pace and were not rushed. One person told us 'I like it here. I have made new friends." A visitor told us "I have no concerns about the care here; staff are very caring.' Another relative said' the staff are kind and respectful.'

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. People told us they were happy with the care they received. Records confirmed people's preferences, history and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided which met their wishes. People had access to activities and people told us they enjoyed these. One person said 'We do lots of different activities.' We spoke to relatives who told us that the home were responsive and kept them informed of any changes. One relative said 'they keep me informed and communicate with me if there are any changes.' The district nurse visiting on the day of our inspection described the staff as always responsive and said 'staff always ask for advice if they have a concern.'

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. Relatives told us the manager made a real difference to the running of the home. One relative said 'If you raise something with the manager they will make sure it's sorted out.' Staff told us the manager had an open door policy and they could raise any issues with them. They said they had regular team meetings and had supervision and an appraisal.

We found that people were treated with dignity and respect and that they were supported to maintain their independence. People's needs were assessed and care was planned in a way that ensured their safety and welfare. Staff were supported in their roles through training and supervision and were aware of the action they would take if they suspected any form of abuse had occurred within the home. Accurate records relating to people's care had been maintained, were stored securely and could be located promptly when requested.

People's care had not always been adequately planned and monitored. We found that their were shortfalls overall in the level of staff training and supervision. We also found that records were not always accurate, stored securely or easy to locate when requested.