You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Curtis Weston House. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 October 2018

We inspected the service on 25 September 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

Curtis Weston House 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. Curtis Weston House is registered to accommodate 44 people in one adapted building. On the day of our inspection 34 people were using the service.

We previously inspected the service on 7 December 2015. We rated the service as `Good’ overall, but rated the key question ‘Safe’ as requiring improvement because risk assessments were not always reviewed and updated and aspects of medicines management were not consistently good. We found at this inspection that improvements to ‘Safe’ had been made and that all other key questions remained Good.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and how to respond to concerns. Risks in relation to people’s daily life were assessed and planned for to protect them from harm and they lived in a clean, hygienic service.

People were supported by enough staff to ensure they received care and support when they needed it. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

The service had safe procedures to respond to outbreaks of infection which protected people, staff and visitors.

People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to provide safe and appropriate care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People lived in a service which met their needs in relation to the premises and adaptions were made where needed. The provider had implemented a refurbishment plan for the premises at the time of our inspection.

People had access to information in a format which met their needs.

People were supported to maintain their nutrition and staff were monitoring and responding to people’s health conditions.

People lived in a service where staff listened to them and got to know them. People’s support needs were recognised and responded to by a staff team who cared about the individual they were supporting. People were supported to enjoy a social life.

There was an open and transparent culture. People were involved in giving their views on how the service was run and there were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. People had access to a complaints procedure.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 October 2018

The service was safe.

People were kept safe and the risk of abuse was minimised because the provider had systems in place to recognise and respond to allegations or incidents.

People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff to provide care and support to people when they needed it.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 October 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and supervision.

People made decisions in relation to their care and support and where they needed support to make decisions they were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to maintain their nutrition and their health needs. They were supported to access health services when they needed them.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 October 2018

The service was caring.

People lived in a service where staff listened to them and cared for them in a way they preferred. People�s emotional needs were recognised and responded to by a staff team who cared about the individual they were supporting.

Staff respected people�s rights to privacy and treated them with dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People were involved in planning their care and support. They were supported to have a social life and to follow their interests.

People received support that was tailored to their individual needs.

People had access to a complaints procedure.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 October 2018

The service was well led.

People were involved in giving their views on how the service was run.

The management team were approachable and there were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.