You are here

Archived: Whitbourne House Requires improvement

This service was previously managed by a different provider - see old profile


Inspection carried out on 27 and 29 October 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Whitbourne House on the 27 and 29 October 2015 and the inspection was unannounced. Whitbourne House provides care for up to 41 older people, all of whom are living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 39 people were living at the service and one person on a respite (temporary) stay.

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.

Risks in relation to people’s needs were not always recorded accurately and staff we spoke with gave conflicting information to what had been recorded. Medicines were stored and administered safely but protocols for ‘as required’ (PRN) medication, were not in place.

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse by staff that understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and systems and procedures that were used effectively. People were protected by effective infection control procedures and the environment was clean.

People received a choice of good quality food which they enjoyed. However we found that the nutritional risks were not always assessed accurately.

People were supported by staff that felt confident in their roles and felt supported. The registered manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA is the legal framework that protects people’s right to make their own choices. DoLS are in place to ensure that people liberty is not unlawfully restricted and where it is, that it is the least restrictive practise.

People were supported by caring staff who respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence. Staff were described as caring by the people we spoke with and we also observed a number of caring interactions.

The staff were aware about the people’s needs but records were not always updated clearly to reflect care needs and the level of assistance required to meet these needs. We found that peoples experience of activities had changed and many felt it could be improved.

There were a number of monitoring systems and processes to ensure that the service delivery was monitored. We found that some of the issues we found around the care documentation had not been identified prior to our inspection.

People spoke positively about the management. The manager was aware about the improvements required to the service. The manager and staff told us they wanted to provide good quality care for people. The registered manager explained she was looking at improving the environment to help promote the principles of dementia care. For example, better use of colour contrast.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the end of the full version of the report.

Inspection carried out on 5 February 2014

During a routine inspection

At our previous inspection visit to the home in July 2013 we had found shortfalls in the documenting of peoples care and welfare needs. The home had subsequently provided an action plan detailing how improvements would be made.

We found that improvements had been made to the completing and recording of the assessments that were completed prior to admission. The care plans in place were being reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Audits were being completed to ensure this was being done.

Nutritional assessments were completed on everyone and reviewed and updated on a regular basis. People who lived in the home had their weight checked at least once a month and any concerns were acted upon.

People were provided with a nutritious and healthy diet. Variety was provided on the menu and people had a choice of where to eat their meals.

The home had employed an activities organiser. Events and activities were being organised which were popular and enjoyable and also often had a therapeutic value for people with dementia. The home had reorganised some of the communal areas to act as memory or reminiscence areas.

Inspection carried out on 26 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with eight people who used the service, two visiting relatives and a health care professional. We also spoke with seven staff. One person we spoke with told us �I am very happy living here, I like the peace and quiet and I have no problems�. Another person said �It�s excellent here, I couldn�t be happier with the care they provided to my family member�.

We found that there were some shortfalls in the recording of the assessing and planning of care and have required that improvements are made.

People told us that whilst they were happy living in the home they were missing things to do during the day. The activities co-ordinator had recently left in February of this year. The manager explained that this position had been advertised and was due to be filled in the coming weeks. People told us that staff were always very helpful. One person said �I only have to ask if there is anything I want�.

We found that people were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. People we spoke with told us that they had a choice of food. On person told us �there is always plenty to eat and drink. There is a list up each day to say what�s on the menu�.

We found that the home trained staff correctly before they undertook any responsibility for administering medication.

Staff we spoke with told us that received planned supervision and felt supported by the management team. They told us that they had access to training opportunities which were relevant to their role.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and evaluate the quality of services provided. However we did not see any evidence of actions highlighted from these audits and what was done to address them.

Inspection carried out on 25 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service who were able to talk to us, four

relatives and a visiting professional. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us to understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.

People who lived in the home told us that they could choose what they did and when. They said that they liked living in the home. People told us that they felt safe in the home. They told us that the staff were �nice� and treated them well.

Relatives of people who lived in the home told us that their family members were always treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was preserved at all times.They told us that their family members got very good care. Relatives said that they felt welcome in the home and could visit whenever they wanted to. They told us that the food was ''wonderful'' and people enjoyed the activities. They told us that they were very happy their family members were safe. Relatives described staff as ''brilliant'' and said they had ''nothing but praise'' for the staff team. One person said ''they all deserve a medal''. They told us that the staff and manager were very approachable and if they discussed any issues of concern they were dealt with immediately. Relatives told us that they had no criticism of or complaints about the home.

The visiting professional told us that the home and staff had ''excellent attitudes and values''.