You are here

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 May 2018

Wisteria Care office is situated in Shaftesbury. It provides support to people living in Gillingham, Blandford Forum, and surrounding areas.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 we spoke with told us they felt safe using the service and said they trusted the staff that supported them. People and their relatives were extremely satisfied with the quality of the service they received and the caring approach from staff. People said about the service, “‘Very good, my dignity is well upheld” and “I’m really happy with the care I get”.

Some people needed the support of staff to either give or prompt them to take their prescribed medicines and creams. We identified gaps on the MAR [medication administration records] for both prescribed medicines and creams. The manager told us some of the gaps were linked to family members who also gave out medicines without signing.

Risk assessments clearly identified any risk and gave staff guidance on how to minimise the risk. They were designed to keep people and staff safe while allowing people to develop and maintain their independence. People had a copy of their records in their home and a copy was retained in the office. People told us they looked through the records and were happy with how the information was recorded.

People were supported by enough staff to provide effective, person centred support. Staff were recruited safely with appropriate pre-employment checks and received training and support to ensure that they had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Rotas showed that people had staff who visited regularly and staff told us that they generally visited the same people each week.

People were supported to make choices about all areas of their support and staff understood the principles of mental capacity. Where people had medical decisions in place around their end of life care, these were recorded. Some care plans reflected that end of life wishes and preferences had been discussed. The registered manager told us that they would ensure that people’s choices and preferences were consistently discussed and reflected in people’s care plans.

People and those important to them were involved in planning the support they would receive and were asked for their views about the support and any changes to people’s needs. Reviews identified where people’s needs had changed and reflected changes to the support provided in response to this.

People were supported by staff who respected their individuality and protected their privacy. Staff understood how to advocate and support people to ensure that their views were heard and told us that they would ensure that people’s religious or other beliefs were supported and protected. Staff had undertaken training in equality and diversity and understood how to use this learning in practice. Interactions with people were kind and caring, and relatives told us that they had peace of mind

People were supported from the spread of infection by staff who understood their role in infection control and used appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Staff supported some people with their food shopping and assisted them with the preparation and cooking of their meals. People's choices of the foods they wished to purchase were respected.

Staff were aware of the reporting process for any accidents or incidents that occurred and there was a system in place to record incidents. Where accidents, incidents or near misses had occurred these had been reported to the service's managers and documented in the service's accident book.

When pe

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 9 May 2018

Some aspects of the service were not safe

People were at risk of not receiving the medicines and creams as prescribed as records were inconsistently completed.

People were supported by staff who understood how to recognise abuse and the actions needed if abuse was suspected.

People were supported by sufficient staff who had been recruited safely to keep people safe when they received care.

Risks to people had been assessed and there was information about action to be taken to minimise the chance of harm occurring to people and staff.

People were protected from the spread of infection by staff who understood the principles of infection control.

Lessons were learnt and improvements were made when things went wrong.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 May 2018

The service was effective.

Assessments were completed of people�s care and support needs and choices which respected people�s individuality and diversity.

Staff had completed an induction and on-going training that enabled them to carry out their roles effectively.

People were asked to consent to their support and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff received training and supervision to give them the skills they needed to carry out their roles.

People had their eating and drinking needs understood and met.

The service worked with other healthcare services to deliver effective care.

People�s needs and choices were assessed and effective systems were in place to deliver good care and treatment.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 May 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were compassionate and kind.

Staff knew how people liked to be supported and offered them appropriate choices.

People were supported by staff that respected and promoted their independence, privacy and dignity

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People had individual care records which were person centred and gave details about people�s history, what was important to them and identified support they required from staff

People and their relatives were listened to and felt involved in making decisions about their care. Where changes were required, these were acted on and reflected in care plans.

People and relatives knew how to raise any concerns and told us that they would feel confident to raise issues if they needed to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 May 2018

The service was well led.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the service and told us that they were able to speak with the office when they needed to.

Staff felt supported and were confident and clear about their roles and responsibilities.

Feedback was used to plan actions and make improvements.

Quality assurance measures were used to identify patterns or trends. The registered manager was working with their management team to ensure that systems to provide oversight were proportionate and consistent.