We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Waverley on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Waverley, you can give feedback on this service.
Faulkner House provides domiciliary support services to people in their own homes. It provides a service to older people and younger adults some of whom have a physical disability, sensory impairment or dementia. At the time of our inspection there were eight people receiving a regulated activity of personal care.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were protected by staff who had knowledge of the signs and symptoms that could indicate a person was being harmed or abused. Staff understood how to raise safeguarding concerns both internal and external to the service. People told us that staff made them feel safe.
Staff worked with people, where appropriate their relatives, and healthcare professionals to manage and reduce the risks they faced in their day to day lives.
People were supported by a consistent group of staff who knew them well and had been trained to meet their needs. Training included mandatory courses and on-going support to ensure staff had the necessary skills to support people competently.
Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and demonstrated this when supporting people. 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’s desired outcomes were identified and plans created to achieve them. People received person centred care which understood, respected and met their current and emerging care needs. Regular reviews were held with involvement from people, their legal representatives or people important to them, familiar staff and relevant health and social care professionals.
People were supported to access health care services, such as district nurses, in a timely way when required and to attend appointments in order to maintain their health and wellbeing. Care visit times were amended to accommodate this.
People’s and staff member’s views were sought in meetings, reviews and annual surveys. People fedback they felt listened to and spoke positively about the care they received. People told us they knew how to complain should they need to and were confident that action would be taken to resolve any identified issues. Staff told us they felt supported, that the team worked well together and that their learning needs were explored.
The management conducted audits to help ensure the quality and safety of care people received was maintained and improved. There was a positive, open and encouraging culture at the service.
Rating at the last inspection:
At our last inspection we rated the home Good (published 26/11/2016).
Why we inspected:
This inspection was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
Staff understood the importance of people consenting to the care they provided and encouraged choice making. They understood the importance of enabling people to make their own decisions wherever possible and seeking the involvement of appropriate people when making decisions to provide care in a person’s best interests if they were not able to give consent themselves.
The person receiving support felt safe and well cared for. They were protected from harm because staff understood the risks they faced and how to reduce these risks. They also knew how to identify and respond to abuse.
Staff were consistent in their knowledge of the person’s needs and spoke with confidence about the care they provided to meet these needs. Care and treatment was delivered in a way that met the person’s needs and promoted their independence and dignity. This included the application of prescribed creams. Staff kept accurate records about the care and support they provided.
There were enough safely recruited staff to ensure the care could be provided. Staff told us told us they felt supported in their roles and had received training that provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills to do their job effectively.
The person had access to health care professionals and was supported to maintain their health by staff. Staff understood the need to share information about changes in people’s health.
The person was positive about the care they received and told us the staff were nice. Staff treated the person and each other with respect and kindness throughout our inspection.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and people were encouraged to contribute to the management of the service.
Comments from people included; "excellent staff, their visits set me up for the day, they are all so very friendly".
Each person had a detailed plan of care that included people's individual needs and wishes. The plans also included information about the person's physical, social and emotional healthcare needs.
Staff worked with a variety of healthcare professionals including learning disability teams and speech and language therapists in order to provide individual person centred care for people they supported.
Staff were aware of policies and procedures regarding safeguarding people from abuse or harm and knew the correct course of action to take in the event of any concerns.
Staff we spoke to had received appropriate training and were experienced and well supported to carry out their duties.
We saw that quality assurance audits were undertaken annually to ensure the agency was kept under review. Records showed us that families and professionals involved in people's care were consulted. Outcomes from the last audit were positive.
During our visit we spoke with two people who used the service and a relative on the telephone and four members of staff (including the manager). We also spoke with a member of staff from the East Boro Housing Trust Human Resources team. We looked also looked at records which included care files of people who used the service, personnel files of employees and the complaints record.
Comments we received from the people we had contact with were positive. People said that their privacy and dignity were respected. We were told the carers are very reliable, their time keeping is good and happy to leave their relative with them. Another person told us that the cares were 'Ok in the main' and that they preferred older cares.'
People also told us that the quality of the service was 'in the main it was OK', they were 'very pleased with the service' and 'staff do a reasonable job' however there did not appear to be a system in place to ensure that the manager assess staff performance, talk's to people or monitors and reviews the quality of the service provision regularly.