Archived: Whittington Village Care

We checked the action taken by the provider to achieve three standards they had not met at our previous inspection in August 2013. We found the provider had taken some action, but not enough to meet these three standards. This meant that people in the home were not always treated with consideration and respect. Also, there were not always enough staff available with the right training, skills and experience to ensure people's needs were met.

We looked at the safety and suitability of the premises because of concerning information we had received. We found that the heating in the home was inadequate and the premises were not well maintained. This meant that people in the home, visitors and staff were exposed to risks to their health and safety.

We found that the provider did not have effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. We found that risks to the health and safety of people in the home and others were not effectively assessed, monitored or managed.

We carried out this inspection to check the action taken by the provider in response to our previous inspection in January 2014. We found some improvements to the service provided: people had been asked for their views of the service through the use of questionnaires; some repairs and maintenance had been carried out; action had been taken to ensure the temperature of the home was suitable for people living there; most staff had received appropriate training.

However, we found there were still areas that required improvement: the home was not adequately maintained; risks to people's health and safety were not always identified, assessed and managed; the provider's recruitment processes were not always effective in ensuring all the required information was in place for staff; planned staffing levels were not always maintained.

People told us, 'The staff are lovely', and 'They're all helpful'. We observed friendly, kind and sensitive interactions between staff and people in the home. However, we also heard some inappropriate and patronising communication by staff. People were not asked about their preference of the gender of care staff helping them with personal care.

We found the staffing levels in the home were based on information that was not always correct or up to date. The planned staffing levels were not always maintained. This meant that people may not always have the assistance or support they required.

We found that staff had not received all the necessary training to enable them to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. We observed unsafe manual handling during our inspection and found that the staff involved had not received relevant training.

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We observed staff providing appropriate assistance and encouragement to people, for example, to walk with walking frames and to take part in activities. One person clearly enjoyed chatting with staff and we saw other examples of positive and sensitive interactions between people using the service and staff.

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. One person told us they liked the meals provided. A relative told us that the person they visited was provided with an alternative if they did not like what was on the menu.

People were cared for in a clean and adequately maintained environment. We saw that improvements had been made to the home since our previous inspection. All of the areas we looked at in the home appeared clean and there were no offensive odours.

We found that people were involved in making decisions about their care. An independent advocacy service was used to ensure decisions were taken in people's best interests.

People's needs were not always assessed and care was not always planned to meet their needs. We found that one person's needs were not properly assessed or planned for and they were at risk of receiving inappropriate or unsafe care.

People told us they enjoyed the meals in the home. However, we found that people did not always have a choice of meals and there was a lack of variety of the meals provided.

We found that the systems for the prevention and control of infection were not operated effectively. This meant that people using the service and staff were at risk of exposure to health care related infections.

People told us they liked the staff. We found that staff had training relevant to their job roles.

We saw that there was a system for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. We found that the system for identifying, assessing and managing the risks to people using the service was not fully developed or effective.