You are here

St Winefrides Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 February 2017

The inspection took place on 16 January 2017 and was unannounced.

St Winefrides Residential Home is a large, detached, older style property situated close to the town centre of Littlehampton. It is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 24 older people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people living at the home. Eighteen bedrooms were of single occupancy and three were shared. Communal areas included a large sitting room, a lounge used by people wishing for a quieter environment, known as the ‘quiet lounge’. The ‘quiet lounge’ overlooked an accessible garden to the rear of the property. There was also sitting areas in the corridors to allow people to sit and rest when needed. The home also had a dining room.

The service had two registered managers in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. Both registered managers were available on the day of our inspection.

Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse. People told us they felt safe at the home.

Systems were in place to identify risks and protect people from harm. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed monthly. Where someone was identified as being at risk, actions were identified on how to reduce the risk and referrals were made to health professionals as required.

Accidents and incidents were accurately recorded and were assessed to identify patterns and triggers. Records were detailed and referred to actions taken following accidents and incidents.

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure the safe ordering, administration, storage and disposal of medicines. Medicines were managed, stored, given to people as prescribed and disposed of safely.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. The registered manager used a dependency tool to determine staffing levels. This information was reviewed following falls or changes in a person's health condition, which might increase, or change people's dependency level.

Safe staff recruitment procedures ensured only those staff suitable to work in a care setting were employed.

Staff had received a range of training and many had achieved or were working towards a National Vocational Qualification in Health and Social Care. Staff attended supervision meetings with the registered manager at least six times per year.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. The members of the management team and care staff we spoke with had a full and up to date understanding of the MCA and DoLS. These safeguards protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there are restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed by appropriately trained professionals. We found that appropriate DoLS applications had been made, and staff were acting in accordance with DoLS authorisations.

People had sufficient to eat and drink and were offered a choice throughout the day. They had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services.

The home had been decorated and arranged in a way that supported people living with dementia.

Staff were caring, knew people well, and treated people in a dignified and respectful way. Staff acknowledged people's privacy and had developed positive working relationships with people. Relatives spoke positively about the staff at St Winefrides Residential Home. Staff listened and acted on what people said and there were opportunities for people to contribute to how the service was organised.

Care plans provided staff with detailed and comprehensive information about people, their likes, dislikes, preferences and how they wanted to be cared for. A range of activities was planned that met people's interests and facilitated their hobbies. People had access to the community, supported by staff.

Complaints were listened to and managed in line with the provider's policy. In the past 12 months, there had been no formal complaints.

People and their relatives were involved in developing the service through meetings. People, relatives, healthcare professionals connected to the service and staff were asked for their feedback in annual surveys. Staff felt the registered managers were very supportive and said there was an open door policy. Relatives spoke positively about the care their family members received.

Quality assurance systems were in place to regularly review and improve the quality of the service that was provided.

Inspection areas



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was safe.

People had detailed care plans, which included an assessment of risk. These were subject to a regular review and contained sufficient detail to inform staff of risk factors and appropriate responses.

Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to recognise and report abuse.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to make sure that people were safe and their needs were met.

Medicines were managed in accordance with best-practice guidelines.



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was effective.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation and staff understood the requirements of this.

Staff were trained in a range of topics, which were relevant to the specific needs of the people living at the home.

People were supported to maintain good health and had regular contact with health care professionals.

People were provided with a balanced diet and had ready access to food and drinks.

The environment was conducive to meeting the needs of people living with dementia.



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was caring.

People were looked after by kind and caring staff. Relatives spoke highly of the staff.

People were supported to express their views and to be involved in all aspects of their care. Relatives attended review meetings.

People were treated with dignity and respect.



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans provided detailed information to staff on people’s care needs and how they wished to be supported.

A programme of activities was organised in line with people's preferences.

Complaints were managed in line with the provider's policy.



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was well led.

The culture of the organisation was open, transparent and inclusive, which enabled staff to feel able to raise concerns.

There was a range of methods for staff to be included in the development of the service and to express their views.

The registered manager sought the views of people, relatives, staff and professionals regarding the quality of the service and to check if improvements needed to be made.

Robust and frequent quality assurance processes ensured the safety, high quality and effectiveness of the service.