Background to this inspection
Updated
5 April 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This comprehensive inspection was carried out by one inspector on 20 and 23 February 2018 and was unannounced.
We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) as part of this inspection process. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also checked the information we held about the service and the provider and saw that no concerns had been raised.
People who used the service were not able to share their views with us. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Subsequent to this inspection we contacted relatives of one person who used the service by telephone to obtain their views on the service provided.
Updated
5 April 2018
This inspection took place on 20 and 23 February 2018 and was unannounced. When we last inspected the service in October 2015 we found that the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the service received an overall, rating of Good. However at this inspection we found the service was not meeting all the required regulations. Poor Infection control practices placed people at risk of contamination and at risk of cross infection. We found that the staffing levels provided were not always adequate in ensuring people’s safety at all times and the poorly maintained environment failed to provide a homely and comfortable place in which people lived.
Villcare – Stanley Road is a ‘care home’. 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. Villcare – Stanley Road–accommodates four people who have a learning disability. The service is not registered to provide nursing care. At the time of this inspection there were two people living at the home.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
There was a quality assurance system in place. However, these systems had failed to identify issues found as part of this inspection and placed people at risk of harm.
We found that records were not always written in a positive or respectful way and records relating to consent required updating.
People’s relatives told us that they were confident that people were safe living at Stanley Road.
Risks to people were appropriately assessed, planned for and managed.
Staff had received training, support and development to enable them to carry out their role effectively. The service is required to update records in relation to meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs).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. People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration.
People were treated with kindness by staff who respected their privacy and upheld their dignity. People’s relatives were encouraged to be involved with people’s lives where appropriate, to provide feedback on the service and their views were acted upon.
People received personalised care that met their individual needs. People were given appropriate support and encouragement to access meaningful activities and follow their individual interests.
People’s relatives told us they knew how to complain but had not had occasion to do so. They said they were confident they would be listened to if they wished to make a complaint.
We found that records were not always written in a positive or respectful way and records relating to consent required updating.
The registered manager had created an open and inclusive atmosphere within the service. People’s relatives, staff and external health professionals were invited to contribute their views in relation to further developing the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.