We carried out a review of the data available to us about Wey Valley House 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 Wey Valley House, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People received their care from kind and compassionate staff who knew them well. There was a friendly, inclusive atmosphere in the home, which relatives and professionals told us benefited the people who lived there.
People had access to a wide range of activities and outings and had opportunities to access their local community. People’s friends and families were made welcome and were encouraged to be involved in the life of the home.
People enjoyed the food at the home. They were encouraged to contribute to the menu and their feedback was listened to.
Staff supported people in a way which maintained their dignity and respected people’s decisions about their care. People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independence.
People were supported to maintain good health and to access healthcare services when they needed them. Staff worked well with other professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. Risks were assessed and managed effectively. Medicines were managed safely.
Staff had the induction and training they needed to carry out their roles. The provider sourced additional training if necessary to ensure staff had the skills to provide people’s care. Staff had opportunities to discuss their performance and training needs through regular supervision with their managers.
There were enough staff available to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff attended safeguarding training and understood their role in protecting people from harm. The provider’s recruitment procedures helped ensure only suitable staff were employed.
People’s care was provided in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). 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.
The management team maintained an effective oversight of the service, which ensured people’s care was well-planned and delivered. The provider’s quality monitoring systems ensured that key aspects of the service were checked and audited regularly.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
At the last inspection the service was rated Good (published 2 September 2017).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned 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 we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Wey Valley House provides residential care for a maximum of 26 people and domiciliary care to people living in their own homes. Some people receiving the services were living with dementia. On the day of the inspection 25 people were receiving residential care, and five people personal care in their own homes.
There were registered managers in post for the residential home and the domiciliary service. 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 felt safe and their care records contained up to date risk assessments to guide staff in how to protect people from risks whilst enabling them to remain independent. People were protected against the risks of potential abuse because the provider followed safe recruitment practices and staff knew how to safeguard people. People were supported by sufficient staff to meet their individual needs and medicines were administered safely.
Staff worked in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). 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 received individualised care from staff who had the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to carry out their roles. People’s nutrition and hydration needs and preferences were met. People’s health care needs were monitored and any changes in their health or well-being prompted a referral to their GP, district nurse, tissue viability nurse, community mental health team, or other health care professionals.
Staff were caring and knew people well. People were encouraged to be independent. Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity, and people were able to have a say in the running of their home.
Care plans were detailed and contained information on people’s lifestyles and preferences. They included details on people’s routines and what support people liked to receive. People’s needs were assessed and their care was regularly reviewed.
People had access to a range of activities and were able to choose what activities they took part in. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and raise concerns. People had their concerns responded to.
There was a registered manager in place who promoted a positive culture and supported their staff. Staff and people were involved in the running of the home. People and those important to them had opportunities to feedback their views about the home and quality of the service they received
Audits were completed frequently, were thorough, and were used to make improvements to the service people received.