You are here

Archived: Winters Park Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 November 2014

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Winters Park provides accommodation and personal care for up to 41 older people, some of whom may suffer from dementia. It is owned and operated by Bupa Care Homes (CFC homes) Limited. The home is situated within a residential area about one mile from the town centre of Penrith.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection visit. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

At the last inspection visit in January 2014 we found that this service met all the national standards we looked at. Since then there has been no incidents or concerns raised that needed investigation.

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 5 August 2014 and during the inspection we spoke to people in their own rooms and those who were sitting in the communal areas. People told us they were happy with the care and support they received. Comments included, “I love it here because I am never lonely.

People were protected by staff who knew how to keep them safe and managed individual risks well. Staffing levels were appropriate which meant there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and support their independence. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People had access to health care services which ensured their health care needs were met. Staff had completed training in safe handling of medicines and the medicines administration records were up to date. People were provided with sufficient food and drink in order to maintain good levels of nutrition and hydration. People told us they had a choice of dishes at each meal.

People told us staff were kind and caring, which our observations confirmed. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff that provided individual and personalised care. Each person had an individualised support plan that outlined the level of care required to meet their needs.

Staff training was up to date. All staff were supported by the management team through regular staff supervision and appraisals. Procedures in relation to recruitment and retention of staff were robust and ensured only suitable people were employed to care for and support those using this service.

The provider had an effective system in place to monitor the care and support given to those who lived in Winters Park.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 November 2014

The service was safe. People told us they felt safe living in Winters Park. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities to keep people safe and protect them from abuse. All staff had completed adult protection training. Medicines were administered safely with all records up to date.

Procedures for staff recruitment were robust which meant only suitable people were employed to care and support those who used the service. The service had procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We saw that people had been fully assessed before they were admitted to Winters Park. We found individual risks had been assessed and identified as part of the care planning process. Control measures had been put in place to manage any risks in a safe and consistent manner.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 November 2014

The service was effective. We observed warm and open interactions between the staff team and the people who lived at the home and their families. This approach helped staff to find out what mattered to a person so they could take account of their choices and preferences.

Staff had access to ongoing training to meet the individual and diverse needs of the people they supported. This ensured staff had the appropriate skills and knowledge to carry out their role effectively.

Records showed that all people who lived at the home were assessed to identify the risks associated with poor nutrition and hydration. We saw that people’s needs were monitored and advice had been sought from other health professionals where appropriate.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 November 2014

The service was caring. All the people we spoke to expressed satisfaction with the service and felt they were well cared for. We saw meaningful interactions between people and the staff and noted that people’s privacy and dignity was respected.

We saw evidence that people had been involved in deciding how they wanted their care to be given and they told us they discussed this before they moved in.

Each person had a detailed care plan, which was underpinned by a series of risk assessments and daily records. We saw evidence to demonstrate care plans had been reviewed on a regular basis. This ensured staff had up to date information about people’s care needs and wishes.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 November 2014

The service was responsive. People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission to the home. Records showed people and their family members had been involved in making decisions about what was important to them. People’s care needs were kept under review and staff responded quickly when people’s needs changed.

The management and staff at the home worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a consistent way. This demonstrated the service had an open and co-ordinated approach in ensuring people received the support they needed.

People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and relatives. Family members spoken with confirmed they could visit whenever they wished and staff made them welcome in the home. We observed people participating in a range of activities during the day.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 November 2014

The service was well-led. The manager had developed good working relationships with the staff team and external agencies so people received personalised care and support which met their needs.

The registered manager had a high profile within the home and was able to describe their priorities for maintaining and improving the level of service in the year ahead. This meant there was clear leadership at the home and the manager was aware of her responsibilities.

There was an appropriate internal quality audit system in place to monitor the level of care provided.