We carried out a review of the data available to us about Weston Favell Houses 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 Weston Favell Houses, you can give feedback on this service.
The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to three people who require nursing or personal care. It is made up of two houses and is part of a small group of community houses providing rehabilitation, therapy and support for people with acquired brain injuries. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the location.
At the last inspection, in July 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service continued to be rated as Good.
There was a registered manager in post when we inspected. 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 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.
People’s needs continued to be safely met. People’s needs were assessed prior to moving in to the home and people’s care plans reflected their individual needs and preferences in relation to the support provided. Assessments were in place and appropriately acted upon to promote positive risk taking and effectively manage risks to people’s health and welfare. Staff had received training to provide them with the skills and knowledge they needed to provide people with safe care. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely way.
Staff recruitment processes protected people from being cared for by unsuitable staff and all new staff completed a thorough induction training programme. Staff understood the importance of protecting people from abuse and avoidable harm. They knew what action they needed to take to report any concerns about people’s safety or well-being.
People’s support was provided by a staff team that were caring, friendly, and responsive to people’s changing needs. People were treated with dignity and their right to make choices about how they preferred their support to be provided was respected.
People were supported to eat a healthy diet and to have prompt access to health services to improve their health and well-being. Staff followed the advice of healthcare professionals in meeting people’s needs. Staff ensured that people who required support to manage their medicines received their medicines as prescribed.
The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was a visible role model in the home. People, their relatives and staff told us that they had confidence in the manager’s ability to provide high quality managerial oversight and leadership to the home.
People’s views about the quality of their service were sought and acted upon. There were systems in place to assess and monitor the on-going quality of the service.
This unannounced inspection took place on 23 July 2015. The service provides support for up to three people with acquired brain injuries. At the time of the inspection there were three people using the service.
There is 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.
People said that they felt safe in the house. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and abuse and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns.
Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed it. The recruitment practices were thorough and protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work at the service.
Care records contained individual risk assessments to protect people from identified risks and help keep them safe. They provided information to staff about action to be taken to minimise any risks whilst allowing people to be as independent as possible.
Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their support. People participated in a range of activities both in the house and in the community and received the support they needed to help them do this. People were able to choose where they spent their time and what they did.
People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Records showed that medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when needed.
People were actively involved in decision about their care and support needs There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Staff had good relationships with the people who lived at the house. Staff were aware of the importance of managing complaints promptly and in line with the provider’s policy. Staff and people living in the house were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.
The registered manager was visible and accessible and staff and people had confidence in the way the service was run.
We spoke with three staff members that worked at the service. They told us how they supported people at the service to promote their independence and develop their knowledge and skills. Staff also told us that they felt they were provided with enough information to enable them to meet people's needs and they felt well supported in their roles.
We found that people's needs had been assessed and care and support plans had been put in place to ensure that their needs were met. We found that risks associated with people's care and support had been assessed and control measures and management strategies had been put in place to ensure people's welfare. We found that people were supported to eat a balanced diet and had access as they required to food and drinks.
We found that there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and there was a detailed complaints policy in place. We spoke with staff and people that used the service who were all aware of the complaints policy and they told us that they felt assured that if they needed to make a complaint that it would be listened to and acted upon.
We spoke with a staff member who spoke highly of the service and told us that people were treated like individuals. They told us people's care and support was built around their needs.
We found that people had detailed care and support plans and that people were involved in decisions relating to their care. We found that people were supported to be independent and build on their own skills.