You are here

Archived: Warneford House Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 June 2016

This inspection took place on 26 April 2016 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection in September 2015, we found the provider was not meeting all the regulations we inspected. This was because care and support needs were not always clearly identified in care records. Care records were not always reviewed with the expected frequency. The provider was not always responsive to the changing needs of people, in particular weight loss and dietary needs. Care plans did not always accurately reflect people’s current needs. Call bells were not always in situ or within reach of people.

After the last comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches. We carried out this comprehensive inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they were meeting all of the legal requirements.

Warneford House provides accommodation, nursing and residential care for up to 40 older people including those who are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection the home was providing support to 30 people. The home had 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.

There were systems in place to protect people from abuse, staff had received appropriate support and training which enabled them to identify the possibility of abuse and take appropriate actions to report and escalate concerns. Risks were assessed and managed appropriately through the appropriate use of risk assessments.

There were systems in place to monitor the safety of the environment and equipment used within the home minimising risks to people. There were arrangements in place to deal with emergencies.

There were safe staff recruitment practices in place and appropriate checks were conducted before staff started work ensuring people were supported by staff that were suitable for their role. There was enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Medicines were managed, stored and administered safely by trained and competent staff.

There were processes in place to ensure new staff were trained appropriately and staff received regular training, supervision and annual appraisals. Staff gained consent for the support they offered people. The registered manager and staff were able to demonstrate their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005

and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards legislation.

Staff had a good understanding of the needs of the people and how they liked to be supported. Staff spoke with and treated people in a respectful and caring manner and interactions between people, their relatives and staff were relaxed and friendly. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity. People and their relatives told us they were made welcome in the home.

People received care and treatment in accordance with their identified needs and wishes. Care plans documented information about people's personal history, choices and preferences and preferred activities.

There was information on how to make a complaint displayed on the notice board for people living at the home. People knew how to complain and felt that when they did that their concern was taken seriously.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor and evaluate the quality of the service provided.

Inspection areas



Updated 18 June 2016

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs in a safe and timely way.

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.

People were protected by the provider's recruitment procedures.

People's medicines were managed safely.



Updated 18 June 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills, training and knowledge to offer effective support to people.

Staff members understood the implications of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and sought consent from people prior to care or treatment.

Staff liaised with community based health care professionals to make sure people's care and treatment needs were met.



Updated 18 June 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were attentive to people's needs. Staff were kind and thoughtful in their interactions with people.

People's dignity was promoted.

Staff were aware of people's individual needs, backgrounds and personalities.



Updated 18 June 2016

The service was responsive

People received care and support from staff who knew them. Care plans were informative and reflected people's preferences.

There were processes in place to consult with people and their relatives about the service provided.

There was a complaints procedure in place although no recent complaints had been received.



Updated 18 June 2016

The service was well-led.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.

People were asked for their views on the service.

Staff were supported by the management team.