We carried out a review of the data available to us about Whitehaven 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 Whitehaven, you can give feedback on this service.
Whitehaven is a residential care home providing personal care to 11 people with learning disabilities at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 11 people.
People lived in a large residential building in a quiet street in Bognor Regis, near local shops and transport links. There was an accessible garden and people had their own rooms.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 11 people. Eleven people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people. Of the 11 bedrooms, there were two independent flats that people lived in attached to the home, along with nine bedrooms, which reduced the feel of a large institutional building.
The service had not 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. However, people using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them and the building had been adapted to reduce the impact of a larger building.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were safe at Whitehaven and told us they felt safe and well cared for. People were protected from the risks of abuse and other risks had mitigated. People received their medicines when they needed them, and the service was clean and tidy. There were enough staff to keep people safe.
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.
Staff were well trained, supervised and supported in their role. People told us that they liked the food and had enough to eat and drink. People’s health needs were well supported, and the building was suitable to meet people’s needs.
Staff treated people with kindness and compassion, and people told us they liked the staff. People were supported to have a voice and make decision about their own care. Staff ensured people were as independent as they could be and respected people’s privacy.
Whitehaven provided a person-centred service and people enjoyed a range of activities. People were supported with their communication needs by staff that knew them well. People knew how to complain, and staff were trained to support people at the end of their lives.
The registered manager was a visible presence who provided leadership to the service. Staff spoke highly of the manager One staff said, “The manager is the best here so far, she likes to get involved and talk and makes people laugh. You can always go to her and if its work or personal problem she finds time.”
Quality audits had been effective in identifying shortfalls and putting them right through action plans. People and staff were involved in the running of the service and people’s information was being shared safely.
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 (published 16 December 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
At the last inspection carried out on the 10 and 11 December 2014 the service was rated Good overall with the caring section rated as requires improvement. At this inspection we found improvements to the caring section had been made and the service remained good overall.
We carried out this inspection as part of our routine schedule of inspections and to check that people were still receiving a good standard of care and support.
People told us they felt safe with staff. Relatives had no concerns about the safety of people. There were policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of adults and staff knew what action to take.
Potential risks to people had been identified and assessed appropriately. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people and safe recruitment practices were followed. Medicines were managed safely.
Staff had received all essential training and there were opportunities for them to study for additional qualifications. All staff training was up-to-date. Team meetings were held and staff had regular communication with each other at handover meetings which took place between each shift.
People were supported to have choice and control of their lives as much as they were able and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy diet. They had access to healthcare professionals. People’s rooms were decorated in line with their personal preferences.
Staff knew people well and positive, caring relationships had been developed. People were encouraged to express their views and these were respected by the staff who supported them. People were involved in decisions about their care as much as they were able. Their privacy and dignity were respected and promoted. Staff understood how to care for people in a sensitive way.
Care plans provided information about people in a person-centred way. People’s personal preferences and their likes and dislikes were documented so that staff knew how people wished to be supported. There was a variety of activities on offer which people could choose to do. Complaints were dealt with in line with the provider’s complaints procedure.
Weekly and monthly checks were carried out to monitor the quality of the service provided. There were regular meetings with people and staff and feedback was sought on the quality of the service provided. People and staff were able to influence the running of the service and make comments and suggestions about any changes. Regular one to one meetings with staff and people took place. These meetings enabled the registered manager and provider to monitor if people’s needs were being met.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 10 and 11 December 2014.
Whitehaven provides support and accommodation for adults with a variety of learning disabilities and mental health conditions. These include Down’s syndrome, autism and Asperger syndrome and schizophrenia. At the time of this inspection there were 11 people living at the home. Nine people were able to communicate verbally and independently. People’s levels of support varied; with one person requiring one to one support whilst others needed emotional support and were independent in other aspects of their lives.
During our inspection the registered manager was present. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’
People told us that they were happy with the support they received from staff and that they were treated with kindness. However, staff did not always ensure people’s dignity was maintained when they were in a state of undress.
People were supported to express their views and to be involved in making decisions about their care and support. Staff knew each person’s individual needs, traits and personalities. People were supported to access and maintain links with their local community. Support plans were in place that provided detailed information for staff on how to deliver people’s care.
The service had good systems in place to keep people safe. People told us they felt safe. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. The manager was clear about when to report concerns and the processes to be followed to inform the local authority and the Commission in order to keep people safe. Medicines were managed safely.
People were able to make choices, to take control of their lives and supported to increase their independent living skills. Risk assessments and support plans were in place that considered potential risks to people and strategies to minimize these were recorded and acted upon. People were supported to access healthcare services and to maintain good health.
People told us that there were enough staff on duty to support them and meet their needs. Appropriate recruitment checks were completed to ensure staff were safe to support people. Staff were sufficiently skilled and experienced to care and support people to have a good quality of life. Staff received training, supervision and appraisal that supported them to undertake their roles and to meet the needs of people.
Whitehaven met the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and people confirmed that they had consented to the care they received. Staff were kind and caring and people were treated with respect. Staff knew what people could do for themselves and areas where support was needed.
People told us that management of the home was good. Regular meetings were held with people and staff that encouraged open and transparent communication between people and management. Staff understood the vision and values of Whitehaven and the manager monitored that these were reflected in the support that people received.
Quality assurance audits were completed which helped ensure quality standards were maintained and legislation complied with. Accidents and incidents were acted upon and reviewed on an individual basis to prevent or minimise re-occurrence.
We saw that people's consent was obtained where possible before care and treatment undertaken. We observed that the care given was safe and appropriate and based on effective care planning and risk assessments. This meant that people's individual needs were met and preferences were taken into account.
People were protected from the risks associated with poor medication management. We saw that medicines were properly handled and administered in line with the providers policy. We noted that there were adequate numbers of skilled and experienced staff to deliver safe and appropriate care. We also found that systems were in place for people and relatives to make a complaint about the service if necessary and that complaints were managed in a satisfactory manner.
Comments from people using the service included. 'I am quite happy living here thank you. Staff are friendly and happy and I can go to football.' Another person said. " The food is good, they have helped me to lose weight".
Each person living in the home had a comprehensive plan of care that guided staff to their individual needs and wishes. The plans also detailed people's physical and emotional healthcare needs.
The home's staff worked with a variety of healthcare professionals including learning disability and mental health teams. We were shown that advocates and specialist consultants were used where appropriate.
People were protected from risk of abuse as they were supported by a staff team who had the appropriate knowledge and training on safeguarding adults.
Evidence that we saw showed us that people were supported by a caring, experienced staff team. The staff team were well supported and trained.
People were very positive about the manager and staff team and said that they were kind and friendly.
A regular cycle of quality audits was undertaken to ensure that the home was kept under review.
We also spoke to two members of staff who were on duty. They told us about the care they provide to people at Whitehaven. They also told us what they would do if they believed that someone was being subject to abuse in order to protect them.
We spoke to the manager about the systems that were in place to protect the rights of people who were unable to give consent. We were also told about the systems that were in place to monitor and assess the quality of service provided.