You are here

Archived: Wallfield

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 07/05/2014

During a routine inspection

Wallfield is a care home for up to 14 adults with learning disabilities.  Two beds are used for respite services and 12 for permanent placements. On the day of our inspection visit there were twelve people living at the home and no people receiving respite care. There was a registered manager in post who was present for part of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law like the provider. The registered manager is also referred to as ‘the manager’ throughout this report.

People told us they were happy living at the home and they felt the staff met their needs and were kind and caring. Staff knew people well and were able to communicate with people in a range of ways depending on people’s needs.

There were up to date and relevant care plans in place for people that reflected their individual needs. People were actively involved in care planning and in all decisions about their care. The home’s staff involved other professionals, families and advocates where appropriate. We saw that staff understood people’s care and support needs, were interactive, kind and friendly towards them and treated people with dignity and respect.

A range of activities were offered to people either in groups or on an individual basis. People were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the activities and were happy with the range of activities provided. Staff were skilled at communicating with people who used non-verbal forms of communication so they could interpret which activities people enjoyed and whether or not they wanted to join in or repeat activities.

We found that staffing levels were adequate to meet people’s needs and the manager had an effective system in place to plan this in advance.

The home was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s human rights were properly recognised, respected and promoted. Staff had a good understanding of mental capacity and consent and how this affected people who lived there.

There were suitable procedures in place to ensure that medicines were stored, handled and administered safely.

The home was well run and there was an open culture in the home. Staff and people living in the home said they could speak to the manager if they had any concerns and felt involved in the running of the home.

Inspection carried out on 8 July 2013

During a routine inspection

At this scheduled inspection there were eleven people living at Wallfield and one person who was staying at Wallfield for respite.

We spoke with three people about their experiences of living at the home. We also spoke with five members of staff including the manager.

An individual we spoke with told us, “I like it here”. Staff were positive about the home. One said, “It’s a lovely place, a nice atmosphere”. Another told us, “They deserve the best and that is what we try to provide”.

We found staff sought people’s permission before they helped them. Wallfield supported people in accordance with the essential principles set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions.

We found people’s needs were assessed and care and support planned and delivered in a person centred way. People had been involved in planning the care or support they wanted or needed. One person was happy with the activities they did at the home and told us, “I go to loads of shows and I have a dentist, optician and hairdresser”.

The home undertook a variety of checks and audits to assure themselves of the quality of service at Wallfield.

The home had a complaints policy and procedure. The complaints procedure was provided in both written and pictorial format to ensure people would understand what to do if they were unhappy or worried about something.

Inspection carried out on 28 January 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited there were ten people permanently living at the home and two people receiving respite services. People who live at the home had been assessed as not having capacity to make choices and decisions which affected their lives.

We found evidence that recording showed relevant people had on most occasions not been consulted on decisions about their care and support. This means that systems and safeguards to ensure people experience appropriate care and support and to protect there human rights were not in place.

We saw evidence that people had been involved in developing there own care and support plans.

We spoke with the manager and staff and found they were not aware of their roles and responsibilities in relation to capacity and best interest decisions and this means people could be at risk of abuse or neglect.

We spoke with people’s relatives; one told us staff know their family member “very well” as they have been there a long time. Another told us that they often visit with little notice and “the place is always very clean” and staff make them feel welcome.

We spoke with the manager and four staff who told us that people were treated with respect and were supported to make choices during meal times and daily activities. We observed people being given choices and staff speaking respectfully.

We found the manager had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of services.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)