All inspections: Wycar Leys Bulwell - Care Quality Commission

This inspection took place on 22 and 23 April 2015 and was unannounced.

Wycar Leys Bulwell is a care home for a maximum number of 22 people with learning disabilities. It consists of three buildings which are known as The Cottage, The Homestead and Middleton House. There were a total of 19 people accommodated during our inspection.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of this inspection. 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.

People were safely cared for by staff who knew what action to take to keep everyone safe and the provider used safe systems when new staff were recruited. All risks to safety were minimised and medicines were well managed to make sure people received them safely as prescribed.

Staff received regular training and knew how to manage people’s individual needs. People received sufficient to eat and drink and they had the support they needed to see their doctor and other health professionals as needed.

The staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and applications for DoLS had been made appropriately. Staff gained consent from people whenever they could and, where people lacked mental capacity, we saw that arrangements were in place for staff to act in their best interests.

Staff were kind and helped people to keep in contact with their families. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted.

The complaints procedure was not robust. The registered manager had not always responded to people who had tried to contact the service with their concerns, as messages about their attempts to make contact had not been passed on. Also, the outcome of previous complaints was not clear.

People’s individual needs had been assessed and full clear plans were specific to people as individuals. Staff were knowledgeable about how to respond to people’s individual likes and interests. Staff assisted people to take part in appropriate daily activities and holidays. Any important changes in people’s needs were passed on to all staff when they started their shifts, so that they all knew the up to date information.

Overall, the service was well-led and plans were in place to continuously develop the service to meet people’s changing needs.

We spoke with two people using the service. They told us they received good care. One person said, 'I like it here' and they received the care they needed.

We spoke with two relatives. They told us their family members were well cared for and staff delivered care that met their needs. One relative said, '[Their family member is] happy there. I think it suits [their family member's] needs.' Another relative said, 'I think [staff are] kind and very considerate and caring.'

During our visit we saw positive interactions between staff and people using the service. We spent 15 minutes observing the care in one of the dining rooms at lunchtime. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect and provided one to one support for people who needed this.

One person using the service told us they felt safe and said staff were, 'Nice to me'. They told us staff treated them well. Another person told us all staff had been nice recently.

Relatives we spoke with told us they felt their family members were safe. They told us staff were caring. One relative said staff were, 'Very nice actually' and another relative said, 'Oh they're lovely. Absolutely.'

People using the service who we spoke with told us they felt there were enough staff to meet their needs.

We found staff received an induction, supervision, training and appraisals.

We found that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We spoke with three people using the service. Two people told us staff were kind and nice. The third person told us 'some' staff were nice, but also told us staff were kind and said, 'I like it here'.

We spoke with three relatives. They told us their relatives' privacy and dignity were respected. One relative said staff were, 'Kind yeah. They're friendly. They speak to [their relative] as an equal.' Relatives told us their relatives' independence was promoted.

People using the service who we spoke with told us staff provided care that met their needs. One person said, 'They look after me well.' However, other evidence did not support this. We looked at the care records for one person using the service and saw it had been identified that some documents were needed but these had not been completed.

Two people using the service told us they felt safe with staff. However, other evidence did not support this. We saw that it was sometimes unclear whether safeguarding referrals had or had not been made following incidents and the reasons for the decisions. This meant there was a risk that the local authority were not always being contacted when appropriate.

Relatives we spoke with told us they had no concerns about the building.

We found gaps in staff inductions, supervision, training and appraisals and found that the systems in place for monitoring the service, identifying the need for improvements and addressing these were not always working effectively.

People who use the service stated that the staff at the home were proactive in contacting health care professionals when needed.

People experience support based on comprehensive need's assessments and support plans which were in excellent detail and identify people's needs, preferences and diversity.

Social inclusion is encouraged and people are supported to pursue a healthy lifestyle which has been developed around meaningful and purposeful activities.

Interactions between the staff and people who use the service were positive and people who were able to express an opinion told us that they felt safe and well looked after.

Comments made within a stakeholder's survey showed that people's relatives were very positive about service provision and commented 'the communal areas are excellent and well furnished ' very homely', 'It is very relaxed and homely' and 'the staff take time to empower service users to gain the best out of their lives'.

People who were able to express an opinion told use that they felt that any concerns or complaints would be addressed.

These older reports are from our old approaches to inspection, including those from before CQC was created.

Archived: Wycar Leys Bulwell

All Inspections

22 and 23 April 2015

During a routine inspection

16 May 2013

During a routine inspection

6, 7 December 2012

During a routine inspection

4, 5 May 2011

During a routine inspection

Reports under our old system of regulation