Enhanced Elderly Care Service - Wardley Gate Care Centre

Updated 18 February 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 1 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours notice of the inspection.

Updated 18 February 2022

The inspection took place on 11, 15 and 20 June 2018. The first day of inspection was unannounced. This meant the provider and staff did not know we would be coming.

Enhanced Elderly Care Service - Wardley Gate Care Centre is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Enhanced Elderly Care Service - Wardley Gate Care Centre provides care and support for up to 88 people who require support with personal care, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 75 people living there.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

At the last comprehensive inspection in January 2017 we rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. At the inspection we identified breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 14 (Meeting nutritional and hydration needs); Regulation 16 (Receiving and acting on complaints); Regulation 17 (Good governance) and Regulation 18 (Staffing). This related to robust systems not being in place to monitor nutrition and weight loss, complaints not always being handled in line with the provider’s policy, systems and processes were not established and operated to monitor service provision and insufficient staffing levels.

Following the inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions Safe and Well-Led to at least good. We then carried out a focussed inspection in August 2017 and found improvements had been made in the areas identified at the previous inspection but that the improvements needed to be sustained for a period of time and therefore the service remained ‘Requires Improvement’. At this inspection we found standards had been sustained and further developments had been made and the service had improved to ‘Good’.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The registered manager assessed staffing requirements in line with people’s dependency needs. Staff continued to be recruited in a safe way with all necessary checks carried out prior to their employment.

People and their relatives told us people were safe living at the service. Staff had completed training in safeguarding people and the service raised any safeguarding alerts with the local authority in a timely way.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed and managed. Environmental risk assessments were also in place.

People’s medicines were administered in accordance with best practice and managed in a safe way. People continued to receive their medicines in line with prescribed instructions.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs. People at risk of malnutrition had their weight monitored weekly as well as their food and fluid intake recorded. People accessed a range of health professionals including speech and language therapists, dieticians and doctors. Information of healthcare intervention was included in care records.

New staff completed an induction programme prior to working with people. Staff received regular training, supervisions and annual appraisals to support them in their roles.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and relatives felt the service was caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect when supporting them with daily tasks.

People had access to advocacy services if they wished to receive support including Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs). No one was receiving support at the time of inspection but advocacy services had previously been involved with people in the home.

The provider had an up to date complaints procedure in place. All complaints received were dealt with in accordance with the provider’s procedure. People knew how to raise any concerns they had regarding the service.

People’s physical, mental and social needs were assessed prior to them moving into the home. Care plans were personalised, detailed and reviewed regularly and included people’s personal preferences.

There was a range of activities available for people to enjoy in the home. People were also supported, where necessary, to access activities in the local community including going for walks, visiting places and shopping.

The service had re-designed rooms in the home to further improve people’s lives and their activities. For example, one room had been made into a pub room and another was made into a vintage café style room, with fancy chairs, china cups and saucers, accessories and trinkets.

The provider had a robust audit system in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The views of people, relatives, staff and professionals were sought by the registered manager via surveys. The registered manager analysed all feedback received and identified improvements for the service and took appropriate action.