You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 June 2017

This in inspection took place on 28 April 2017, was unannounced and carried out by two inspectors.

Westcliffe House provides accommodation and support for up to 14 younger adults with learning disabilities and sensory impairments. The service is a large period house divided into self-contained flats. The flats are arranged over four floors and there is a lift to assist people to get to the upper floors. There are two four bedroom flats, one two bedroomed flat and four one bedroom flats. There were 11 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager working at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Risks to people were identified and assessed and guidance was provided for staff to follow to reduce risks to people. Accidents and incidents had been analysed for each person, this information had been used to complete risk assessments to reduce the risk of the event happening again. People received their medicines safely and on time.

Staff knew about abuse and knew what to do if they suspected any incidents of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing policy and the ability to take concerns to agencies outside of the service. Staff were confident that any concerns they raised would be investigated to ensure people were safe.

Health and safety checks had been completed to ensure the environment was safe and equipment worked as required. The registered manager did not have all the certificates available during the inspection. The registered manager supplied these following the inspection. However, the checks all required updating, the registered manager has made arrangements for these to be completed. We recommend that the provider completes these checks as soon as possible.

The provider had a recruitment policy and processes in place to make sure staff were of good character. Staff received training appropriate to their role including British Sign Language and managing challenging behaviour. Some training needed to be updated and there was a plan in place for this. All new staff completed an induction; this included shadowing experienced staff to learn about people’s preferences and behaviours. There was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Staff had not been receiving formal one to one supervisions and appraisals to discuss their training and development. The registered manager had identified this and there was an action plan in place to address this. Staff told us they felt supported and their training needs had been identified.

The registered manager and staff understood how the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was applied to ensure decisions made for people without capacity were only made in their best interests. Staff knew the importance of giving people choices and gaining their consent.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. These safeguards protect the rights of people using services by ensuring that if there are any restrictions of their freedom and liberty, these have been agreed by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. Some people had an authorised DoLS in place and these were reviewed regularly.

People enjoyed a choice of healthy, home cooked food. People were supported to shop and cook their own meals. People’s health was assessed and monitored and staff took prompt action when they noticed any changes. Staff worked closely with health care professionals and followed the guidance given to them.

People were happy living at the service. There was a strong caring relationship between staff and people that encouraged people to be confident and independent.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 June 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people were assessed and there was guidance for staff on how to reduce risks. Staff knew how to keep people safe and how to recognise and respond to abuse.

Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people�s needs.

People received their medicines safely and on time. Medicines were stored, managed and disposed of safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had not received formal one to one supervisions, however, staff felt supported and their training needs had been identified.

Staff had completed training appropriate for their role.

Staff knew the importance of gaining people�s consent and giving them choices. People were supported to make decisions. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People�s health was assessed, monitored and reviewed. Staff worked with health professionals to make sure people�s health care needs were met.

People had enough to eat and drink.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 June 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were friendly, compassionate and kind. They promoted people�s dignity and treated them with respect.

Staff knew people well. They supported people to be as independent as possible.

People were encouraged to be involved with planning their support.

People�s confidentiality was respected and their records were stored securely.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 June 2017

The service was responsive.

Each person had a support plan which centred on them and their preferences. Support plans were reviewed regularly with people.

People were encouraged to take part in activities they enjoyed.

People had access to the complaints procedure in a form they could understand. Complaints were dealt with appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 June 2017

The service was well-led.

Families, staff and health professionals were asked for their views on the service provided. The registered manager had not had access to the results to use these to improve the service.

There was an open and transparent culture. People, staff and families were encouraged to speak to the management team whenever they wanted.

Regular and effective audits were completed. Actions had been taken when shortfalls were identified.

Notifications had been submitted in line with guidance.