You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 February 2018

This inspection took place on the 15 December 2017.

Wellesley Court provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is brought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

Not everyone using Wellesley Court receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

Wellesley Court provided a personal care service to people who lived in a complex of private apartments. Whilst not all people needed support with personal care those that did could either choose to make their own arrangements or use the personal care service provided by Wellesley court staff. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to seven older people with a variety of care needs, including people living with physical frailty or memory loss due to the progression of age. Other people who lived at Wellesley Court could receive care and support should they need it in an emergency.

The service had a registered manager. 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 they were very much at the heart of the service. People felt staff went the extra mile and were experienced at looking after them. People received excellent care that was based around their individual preferences and which was responsive their needs.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

People felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was respected.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and were clear that people had the right to make their own choices. Staff sought consent from people before providing care and support.

People were supported to take their medicines safely from suitably trained staff. Risks to people were minimized through risk assessments.

People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and went out of their way to provide people with what they wanted.

Staff received regular support and one to one sessions or supervision to discuss areas of development. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role.

People were cared for with kindness and compassion. Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a range of activities. Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

A complaints procedure was in place. There were appropriate management arrangements in place. Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was safe.

Recruitment procedures were followed to ensure staff were safe to work with people. Staffing levels were sufficient to take account of people�s needs. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report concerns.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when required. Risks to people�s welfare were identified and plans put in place to minimise the risks.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and one to one supervisions. People were supported to access health professionals and treatments.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care and followed legislation designed to protect people�s rights.

People received support with meals and drinks and had a restaurant on site or could have a hot meal brought over to their apartment.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was caring.

People consistently told us staff supported them with kindness and compassion and got to know people exceptionally well.

People were treated with dignity and respect. People�s privacy was respected at all times. People were involved in planning the care and support they received.

People had positive care experiences and staff ensured people�s care preferences were met. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care from staff who understood and were able to meet their needs. Care plans provided comprehensive information to guide staff and copies were available in people�s homes.

People had access to a range of activities which they could choose to attend. People�s views about the service were listened to. A complaints procedure was in place.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was well led.

People and staff spoke highly of the registered manager, who was approachable and supportive.

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

The service had appropriate policies in place.