Archived: Wakeling Court

The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide accommodation and support with personal care to a maximum of 22 adults with mental health needs. 18 people were using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. They were on a period of leave at the time of our inspection and we were told they were due back in April 2016. An acting manager was in place during the registered managers absence. 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.

Although people had access to health care professionals there was not always an effective system in place for monitoring people’s health care needs were being met. Staff received regular supervision and had access to training. However, there was not an effective system in place to monitor when staff were due training. The service worked within the principles of the Mental capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were able to make choices about their daily lives. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts.

The service had systems in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse. Risk assessments were in place which set out how to support people in a safe manner. There were enough staff working at the service to meet people’s needs and checks were carried out on prospective staff. Medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely.

People told us they were treated well by staff. We observed staff interacting with people in a friendly and respectful manner. Staff understood how to promote people’s dignity, privacy and independence.

People told us the service was meeting their needs. Care plans were in place which were personalised around the needs of individuals. People had access to leisure activities. The service had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

People and staff spoke positively of the management at the service and of the working atmosphere. Various quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place, some of which included seeking the views of people that used the service.

There were regular audits being carried by the management of the service to ensure all information regarding people using the service was accurate and up to date. We saw evidence that care plans were being audited.

People who used the service indicated that they were happy living in the home and no concerns were raised.

Medicines were kept safely and administered in line with the prescribers instructions.

The provider had introduced a new easy to read complaints procedure to assist those people who find the written format difficult to access. There had been no complaints recorded since our last inspection.

Records were kept securely in a locked room and could be located promptly when needed, however people’s personal records were not always accurate and fit for purpose.

The provider had made some of the changes which had been required from the last inspection but we found that some areas of the home were still not clean and hygienic particularly the main kitchen and communal toilet areas.

Medication had not been appropriately monitored and several errors in administration and recording were noted.

We found gaps in some of the care records.

Staff were seen interacting respectfully and took care not to discuss personal issues in the presence of other people. People told us that “staff were polite” and “treated them well.”

The provider had made some of the changes which had been required from the last inspection but we found that the communal areas of the home were still not clean and most of the shared bathroom facilities were in a poor state of repair.