You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 April 2018

This inspection took place 18 and 23 February 2018. It was announced, we gave very short notice to make sure there would be a staff member present when we visited.

Waterbeach 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.

Waterbeach accommodates four people in one adapted, single storey building.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Why the service is rated good.

There was a registered manager at the service, although they were not available at our visit due to long term leave. Another manager was overseeing the home and intended to submit an application to register as manager for Waterbeach. 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 knew how to respond to possible harm and how to reduce risks to people. Lessons were learnt about accidents and incidents and these were shared with staff members to ensure changes were made to staff practise or the environment, to reduce further occurrences. There were enough staff who had been recruited properly to make sure they were suitable to work with people. Medicines were stored and administered safely. Regular cleaning made sure that infection control was maintained.

People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and had the skills and support to carry out their roles. Staff members understood and complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received a choice of meals, which they liked, and staff supported them to eat and drink. They were referred to health care professionals as needed and staff followed the advice professionals gave them. Adaptations were made to ensure people were safe and able to move around their home as independently as possible.

Staff were caring, kind and treated people with respect. People were listened to and were involved in their care and what they did on a day to day basis. People’s right to privacy was maintained by the actions and care given by staff members.

People’s personal and health care needs were met and care records guided staff in how to do this. There were activities for people to do and take part in and people were able to spend time with their peers and take part in cultural and religious activities. A complaints system was in place and there was information in alternative formats so people knew who to speak with if they had concerns.

Staff worked well together and felt supported by the management team, which promoted a culture for staff to provide person centred care. The provider’s monitoring process looked at systems throughout the service, identified issues and staff took the appropriate action to resolve these. People’s views were sought and changes made if this was needed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 April 2018

The service was safe.

Staff assessed risks and acted to protect people from harm. Staff knew what actions to take if they had concerns about people�s safety.

There were enough staff available to meet people�s care needs. Checks for new staff members were undertaken before they started work to ensure they were safe to work within care.

Staff received the support they needed to help people with their medicines if required.

Infection control practices were in place and staff followed these to maintain a clean, hygienic home.

Effective systems were in place to learn lessons from accidents/ incidents and reduce risks to people.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 April 2018

The service was effective.

Systems were in place to make sure people�s care and support was provided in line with good practice guidance.

Staff members received enough training to provide people with the care they required.

People were supported to prepare meals and drinks as independently as possible.

Information was available to support people if they moved services. Staff worked with health care professionals to ensure people�s health care needs were met.

Adaptations were made so that people could be as independent as possible.

Staff supported people to continue making decisions for themselves.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 April 2018

The service was caring.

Staff members developed good relationships with people using the service and their relatives, which ensured people received the care they needed in the way they preferred.

Staff supported people to be as independent as possible.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People had their individual care needs properly planned for and staff were knowledgeable about the care people required to meet all aspects of their needs.

People had information if they wished to complain and there were procedures to investigate and respond to these.

Information was available about people�s end of life wishes if this was appropriate.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 April 2018

The service was well led.

Staff members and the manager worked well with each other so that people received a good service.

Good leadership was in place and the home was well run.

The quality and safety of the care provided was regularly monitored to drive improvement.

People�s views were obtained about changes to their home and what they would like to happen.

Staff contacted other organisations appropriately to report issues and provide joined-up care to people.