You are here

Heathcotes Wendover House Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 January 2020

About the service

Heathcotes Wendover House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to five people, with one person on extended leave at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to seven people.

The service accommodates people in one adapted building. The service is set over two floors with three bedrooms on the ground floor and four bedrooms on the first floor. All the bedrooms have an ensuite shower with access to a bathroom for people who like to have a bath. The service has a small sitting area at the front of the property with a larger sitting room at the rear. There is a kitchen/ diner, laundry room and a rear enclosed garden.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and relatives felt safe care was provided. They acknowledged the new manager had made positive changes and new staff had been appointed, They found the new manager approachable and felt issues they had raised were or had been addressed. However, they felt there was still a lack of continuity of care and that communication between them and the organisation could be improved.

Systems were in place to safeguard people and risks to them were identified and mitigated. Safe medicine practices were promoted. Accident and incidents were recorded and reviewed to promote learning and prevent reoccurrence. Staff were suitably recruited. The service had a number of people on one to one staff support throughout the day and two to one staff support in the community. The rotas showed the required staffing levels were maintained through the use of their own staff, agency staff and staff from other services run by the organisation. They tried to use regular agency staff to promote continuity of care but the use of agency and staff from other services meant continuity of care was not always maintained. The provider was actively recruiting into the vacancies and two staff had been appointed subject to clearance.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s health and nutritional needs were identified. The menus viewed were not varied. We have made a recommendation to address this.

Staff were inducted, trained and supervised. The training and supervision matrices showed gaps in training and supervision. This had been identified by the manager and was being addressed.

Staff were observed to be kind, caring and had positive relationships with people. They promoted people’s privacy and dignity. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. The service was working towards providing people with opportunities for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People had person centred care plans in place. Individual activities were encouraged. Their communication needs were identified and promoted. Systems were in place to enable people and their relatives to raise concerns

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 January 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 January 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 January 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 January 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 8 January 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.