We carried out a review of the data available to us about Waterloo Care Home 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 Waterloo Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Waterloo Care Home is a care home providing accommodation and personal care to a maximum of 36 people aged 65 and above. Accommodation is provided in one building across two floors. Waterloo Care Home provides care to some people living with dementia. The home does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 35 people using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Improvements have been made and the home was well-led. People and relatives said the registered manager was visible and approachable. The registered manager had a robust governance and auditing system in place. Audits were up to date and identified any lessons learnt following incidents and accidents so action could be taken to keep people safe.
People told us they were safe at Waterloo Care Home and risks were managed well. A person told us, “I feel safe here. I have a known risk and they [staff] are taking every precaution.” Medicines were managed, stored and administered safely. Where appropriate, people had risk assessments to administer their own medication.
Care plans and risk assessments were person centred. Relatives told us staff knew their loved ones well. Staff supported people in a kind and compassionate way, considering their dignity and respect.
People, relatives and staff spoke positively of the culture within the home. One person told us, “Every day is a new surprise, [I am] really happy here. I feel the home is well managed, all the staff multi-task.” Staff and relatives described the home as a “family”. One staff member told us, “The home is a happy environment, one team striving for good care for the residents.”
The home was following up to date government guidance relating to COVID-19 for care homes. Cleaning and infection control procedures followed the relevant COVID-19 guidance to help protect people, visitors and staff from the risk of infection.
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 requires improvement (published 25 July 2019).
The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good based on the findings of this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Waterloo Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Waterloo Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 33 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 36 people and provides care to some people living with dementia. Accommodation is provided in one two storey building.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Records relating to risks to people had not always been completed or updated. Examples included risks associated with using an open staircase or reviewing risks following a change in a person’s health. We found no evidence that people had been harmed. However, audits had not identified that people’s records were not always accurate or complete.
People were supported by staff who had been trained to recognise signs of abuse and understood their role in reporting concerns. Staff had been recruited safely, including criminal record checks to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staffing levels met people’s needs. People were protected from preventable infections as staff had been trained in infection control procedures. People had their medicines administered safely. Staff understood the actions needed should they identify a medicine error.
Assessments had been completed prior to a person living at Waterloo which captured the persons care needs, lifestyle choices and any equipment required. Staff had received an induction and on-going training and support which enabled them to carry out their roles. People had their eating and drinking needs met; meals were well balanced and met people’s cultural requirements.
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.
There was limited signage to aid people living with a dementia orientate themselves around the home. Colour choices for furniture could make it difficult for people with visual or cognitive impairments to safely navigate to a chair. We recommended the provider consider professional guidance for dementia friendly care home environments.
People and their families spoke positively about the staff team describing them as kind and caring. People had their privacy, dignity and independence respected. People had their communication needs understood by the staff. This meant people were able to be involved in day to day decisions about their care. A complaints process was in place that people felt if they used would be listened to and actions taken.
People received person centred care by staff who were knowledgeable about their past histories, people close to them, hobbies and interests. People were actively supported to follow their interests and be part of their local community.
The culture of the service was open and transparent. People, their families and the staff team had opportunities to be involved in developing the service. Legal requirements to report information to CQC and other statutory bodies had been met.
We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the ‘Safe’ and ‘Well Led’ sections of this full report.
You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Follow up
We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Waterloo Care Home provides accommodation for up to 36 older people living with dementia who require personal care and support; they do not provide nursing care.
The last full inspection of the service was carried out in April 2013 when we found some medicine administration procedures were not fully safe. Following that inspection the provider sent us an action plan and we re-inspected the home in October 2013 looking specifically at the issues raised. At this inspection we found there had been a marked improvement in the management of medicines within the home.
At the time of the inspection there were 36 people living in the home. There was no registered manger in post, however the new manager had sent their application for registration to CQC and were awaiting a response. 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.
The provider’s staff recruitment procedures helped to minimise risks to people who lived at the home. Training had been given to all staff to make sure they were able to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse. People told us they felt safe at the home and with staff. One person said, “Yes I feel very safe living here.”
There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and to provide care and support in an unhurried manner. People told us staff were always kind and caring. Throughout the inspection there was a cheerful, relaxed and caring atmosphere. There was a consistent staff team with some staff working at the home for up to ten years. It was evident staff knew people well.
Medicines were administered safely. Medicines were administered by staff who had received suitable training. Safe procedures were followed when recording medicines. Medicines administration records (MAR) were accurate. There were no unexplained gaps in the medicines administration records. Audits of medicines had been completed and appropriate actions taken to monitor safe administration and storage.
People had their nutritional needs assessed and received meals in accordance with their personal preferences and needs. Where people required physical assistance to eat this was provided in a dignified manner. We saw people were supported to eat in line with the recommendations made by healthcare professionals. The experience at meal times for people living with dementia was good with people being able to see the meal options available to them and make an informed choice. People told us the food was always good. One person told us they had enjoyed their lunch but it was sometimes a bit large.
People were supported to take part in activities of their choice. A full activities programme was advertised. Care staff carried out activities throughout the day. They organised news discussions, conversations, quizzes, jigsaws and a sing-along. Visiting entertainers also came to the home. One person said they were looking forward to the singer in the afternoon.
The management of the home was described as open and approachable and we were told by people and staff that they would be comfortable to raise any concerns. Where concerns had been raised within the home, appropriate action had been taken to make sure people were fully protected.
The manager had plans for the future development of the home. They told us they wanted to run a happy home where people felt safe and as healthy as possible and for staff to feel part of a family group. They wanted families to feel it was their relative’s home rather than a care home. We could see these plans in action with staff supporting relatives to continue to be involved with people’s care.
People told us they received care and support from kind and caring staff. Throughout this inspection we saw people were supported in a friendly and gentle way. Personal care was provided to people in a way that respected their privacy and dignity.
People's health needs were monitored and they had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. Incidents and accidents were analysed to ensure people received the support they required to maintain their health and well-being.
People were always asked for their consent before staff assisted them with any tasks and staff knew the procedures to follow to make sure peoples legal and human rights were protected.
There were systems in place to monitor the care provided and people’s views and opinions were sought regularly. Suggestions for change were listened to and actions taken to improve the service provided. All incidents and accidents were monitored, trends identified and learning shared with staff to put into practice.
People were protected from the risks associated with medicines and the provider had appropriate medication administration training in place for staff.
People's care needs and risks were assessed and care was delivered to meet their needs. Care plans were reviewed and updated when changes occured.
People's needs were assessed and daily care was delivered in line with their wishes. We saw the home was clean and there were systems in place to promote good practice in relation to infection prevention and control. There were also enough staff on duty to meet people's personal care and medication needs.
Medicines were appropriately stored, however the correct procedures for reporting the refusal of medicines had not always been followed, and the recording of administered medicines was not specific regarding the dose administered. There was no evidence to demonstrate that staff competency in the administration of medicines had been assessed or monitored.
People's care records contained accurate information. People's care needs were assessed and care and support was delivered in line with their individual care plan. One person said, 'Staff help you with your nails and a chiropodist also comes in.'
Appropriate checks were carried out prior to staff starting work. There were sufficient numbers of staff who had received appropriate training. Staff were aware of the need to report any allegation of abuse.
Most of the people who lived at Waterloo Care Home had dementia and were not able to tell us about their experiences. To help us to understand people's experiences we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool. The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helps us to record how people spend their time, the type of support they receive and whether they had positive experiences.
There were a few people who were able to tell us about their care. We spoke with a number of people who told us that staff were kind. One person said: 'The staff are very good at looking after me'. One person told us: 'I have a red button in my room I can press, they come right away'.
In response to a question about medicines, one person said: 'The staff give me a calcium tablet every morning, they remember, they are quite good, and again at night, they don't forget'.
One person told us 'They clean my bedroom every morning.
We saw staff understood people's need for privacy, knocking on doors before entering and ensuring doors were closed while personal care took place. We also saw occasions when their dignity and privacy was not maintained.
We observed one person in bed. There was a light box style window in their room that looked into the corridor. The window was not covered. We were told the person chose not to have the window covered. In the morning the person had a visit from a healthcare professional. People could look in this window and the person's dignity would have been compromised. We observed a member of staff walking into one person's room, while they were being seen by a healthcare professional. They did not knock, collected some protective gloves and left the room.
We observed lunch time. There were seven people in dining room and other people were in their bedrooms. We found that people were not receiving the support they needed to eat and drink.
We found that people's needs were not properly assessed and that care plans were not updated when their needs changed. People were not being care for in a way that was appropriate and safe.
One the day of our visit the cleaner was not working in the home. We spoke with a member of staff who was covering the cleaning duties. They were observed cleaning bathrooms and toilets and emptying waste paper bins in people's rooms. They were not observed cleaning people's bedrooms.
We found that staff were not recruited through effective recruitment procedures.
On the day of our visit there were a variety of health care professionals assessing people's care needs in the home. This may have affected staff's ability to respond quickly to the care needs of people in the home. However, we observed that staff had pagers and checked when they went off and staff were observed discussing who was able to respond particularly when more than one person was calling for assistance.
Most of the people who lived at Waterloo Care Home had dementia and were not able to tell us about their experiences. To help us to understand people's experiences we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool. The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helps us to record how people spend their time, the type of support they receive and whether they had positive experiences.
We spoke with three relatives. Two relatives said they had been informed about the care their relative received. One relative felt that they had not been involved in the care planning for their relative.
We observed that people were supported by adequate numbers of staff and people had a choice of food and drink.
Care records were in the process of being audited on a monthly basis. However, routine reviews of the care records had not been done consistently to ensure care plans were always up to date and accurate.
Medicines were not always handled safely and staff were unable to clarify what supervision they had had in medicines management.
The home's manager was reviewing the quality of the service provided, although some action plans were not fully completed