You are here

Wisteria Lodge Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at Wisteria Lodge. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 9 September 2020

About the service:

Wisteria Lodge is a residential care service that is registered to provide accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 20 people with the following support needs; learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, physical disabilities, younger adults. At the time of our inspection there were 17 people living at the service. Accommodation is provided across two lodges called Wisteria Lodge and Stable Lodge. Each lodge has a separate living room, dining room and kitchenette. Rooms are of single occupancy and have en-suite facilities.

Wisteria Lodge is owned and operated by the provider Sussex Healthcare. Services operated by Sussex Healthcare have been subject to a period of increased monitoring and support by local authority commissioners. Due to concerns raised about the provider, Sussex Healthcare is currently subject to a police investigation in relation to incidents that occurred between 2016 and 2018. The investigation is on-going, and no conclusions have yet been reached.

Wisteria Lodge had been built and registered before the Care Quality Commission (CQC) policy for providers of learning disability or autism services ‘Registering the Right Support’ (RRS) had been published. The guidance and values included in the RRS policy advocate choice and promotion of independence and inclusion, so people using learning disability or autism services can live as ordinary a life as any other citizen.

The service did not consistently apply the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people did not fully reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support for the following reasons; People did not always receive personalised care. Staff did not always plan, review or develop people’s individual support needs and wishes with them. People did not always have support to access the wider community.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found:

Risks relating to people’s care and safety was not always assessed or monitored. Risks relating to behaviours which challenge, and epilepsy management were not consistently mitigated. Further work was required to make the care planning process holistic and further involve people within the design and formation of their care plan.

The outcomes for people did not fully reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support as engagement in the community needed improvement. People did not always have personalised goals to help increase their independence or participation in community activities. Further work was required to ensure people’s communication needs were met.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not always support this practice. We have made a recommendation for improvement. The care planning process failed to reflect and consider best practice guidance.

Quality assurance frameworks were in place; these were not consistently effective in driving improvement or identifying shortfalls. Links and engagement with the local community required strengthening.

Staff felt supported and had access to a range of training. The building was purpose built and met people's needs, with wide corridors, en-suite shower rooms, and ceiling hoists. People could access outside areas and were observed using the grounds. The service was clean, and the risk of infections was mitigated by a dedicated and effective housekeeping team. Complaints were dealt with in line with the provider's policy.

Staffing levels appeared to be safe from our observations and staff and relatives confirmed that the service had enough staff availab

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 9 September 2020

The service was not always Safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 9 September 2020

The service was not always Effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 September 2020

The service was Caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 9 September 2020

The service was not always Responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 9 September 2020

The service was not always Well-Led.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.