You are here

3 Trees Respite (Westbury) Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 25 July 2018

The inspection took place on 3 July 2018 and was an announced inspection. We gave notice because the service provides respite care for up to two people and we wanted to be sure the service was being used at the time of our inspection. This was the first inspection of the respite service, although the provider also operates an outreach service. People using the service have a learning difficult and/or autism and attend the service for regular days each week.

The accommodation is made up of two self-contained flats. One of these flats was in use at the time of our inspection. Four people used the service regularly at various times throughout the year.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 using the respite service receive accommodation and 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.

The service provided safe care. Staffing was shared with the provider’s outreach service. Safe numbers of staff were provided in accordance with people’s assessed needs. People received support with their medicines where this was necessary. Staff liaised with families to ensure the right medicines were given at the right times.

The service was effective. Staff were aware of people’s rights in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and when necessary made decisions in their best interests. Staff worked with other health professionals when necessary to ensure people’s health needs were met. People were supported nutritionally. There were kitchen facilities in each flat for meal and snack preparation.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. Due to the needs of the person being supported at the time of our inspection, we weren’t able to observe care and support taking place. However, feedback from relatives was positive and they told us they were very happy with the service provided. One family member commented on how their relative’s behaviour had improved since being involved with the service.

People were treated as individuals with their own unique needs and preferences. Staff worked closely and regularly with people so that they understood their likes and preferences and how they communicated. People were able to make complaints if they wished to and were supported to do so.

The service was well led. Senior staff worked closely with support staff and the people they supported. There was a collaborative approach between senior staff, staff and people being supported to identifying areas for improvement and create strategic plans for the future of the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 25 July 2018

The service was safe. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people�s needs.

Staff were aware of their responsibility to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and were confident about doing so.

There were risk assessments in place to guide staff in providing safe care and support.

The environment was clean and accommodation was deep cleaned on a monthly basis.



Updated 25 July 2018

The service was effective. People�s rights were respected in line with the MCA.

Staff worked with other professionals where necessary to meet people�s health needs.

Staff received training and support to enable them to carry out their roles effectively.

People�s nutritional needs were met.



Updated 25 July 2018

The service was caring. Relatives told us they were happy with the care provided.

Staff worked closely with families to ensure people�s needs were met whilst using the respite service.



Updated 25 July 2018

The service was responsive. Staff understood people as individuals and knew their likes and preferences.

There were systems in place to manage and respond to complaints.

People were supported to take part in activities and events outside of the service.



Updated 25 July 2018

The service was well led. Senior staff worked collaboratively with the whole staff team to identify areas for improvement.

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

Staff felt well supported and able to raise any issues they had.