You are here

Archived: Wansbeck Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 June 2014
Date of Publication: 22 July 2014
Inspection Report published 22 July 2014 PDF

There should be enough members of staff to keep people safe and meet their health and welfare needs (outcome 13)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by sufficient numbers of appropriate staff.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 11 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider. We talked with other authorities and talked with local groups of people in the community or voluntary sector.

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

Our judgement

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

Reasons for our judgement

When we last inspected the service on 13 March 2014, we told the provider that they were not meeting this regulation. We said, “There were not enough staff employed to ensure that relevant standards such as those relating to infection control and the environment were met.” We judged that this had a minor impact on people who used the service and told the provider to take action.

Following our inspection, the provider wrote to us and told us what actions they were going to take to improve.

At this inspection we spoke with a care worker who had previously been a domestic. He told us that domestic staffing levels were “much improved.” He explained that there were always two domestic staff on duty now to clean the home. He said on some occasions there were three. We looked around the home and found the environment was clean and tidy. People and relatives with whom we spoke also confirmed that the environment was “much cleaner.” We considered that there were now enough domestic staff employed to ensure that relevant standards such as those relating to infection control and the environment were met.

We spoke with people, relatives and staff about care staffing levels. There were 34 people living at the home at the time of our inspection. Two people were in hospital. There were 2 senior care workers and five care workers to look after them through the day. At night there were two senior care workers and two care workers. Two activities coordinators were employed to help meet people’s social needs. The manager worked Monday to Friday.

People and relatives spoke positively about staff members. People described staff as “lovely” and “kind.” One relative commented, “The staff are fantastic.” Some relatives raised concerns that “lots” of staff had left employment at the home. The manager explained that since January 2014 five staff had left, but new staff had been recruited.

Staff with whom we spoke informed us that although they were able to meet people’s needs more staff would still be appreciated. One care worker commented, “We manage most of the time but there are times when we’re helping someone in their bedroom which means there’s no-one in the lounge to supervise people. It’s not too bad because people on this floor are independently mobile but we still have to call for other staff sometimes.” Another care worker informed us, “We have to get staff from the other unit, but they also need cover on their own unit. We have people who need two staff to support them with hoisting so we have to ask for support from the other unit. Sometime there are ‘floaters’ on which helps, but that’s not all the time.”

We spent time with people on each of the four houses. We found that care was delivered in a calm unhurried manner and staff anticipated people’s needs.

We highlighted certain issues in the other regulations that we inspected which affected staffing. We found that staff sometimes spent time in the offices writing up care plans. Relatives commented that they would like to see staff being more “visible” in communal areas. The manager informed us that lockable drawers had been purchased for these areas so that staff could write up their notes with people. Relatives also commented that the doors between the four houses were key pad operated. They explained that having the doors open made staff more noticeable. The manager was looking at how to address this issue, since some people and relatives preferred the doors closed.

Two relatives informed us that at times the activities coordinator was sometimes involved with care duties if assistance was required. This meant the activities co-ordinator could not focus on the individual needs of people because she was supporting other staff in the delivery of general care. We spoke with the manager about these comments. She explained that the activities coordinators had assisted during an exceptional time of staff shortages due to sickness. Now that staff numbers were back to normal, the activ