You are here

West View Short Term Break Service Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 11 and 13 July 2018. As this is a small service and people are not always staying there, we gave two days’ notice of our visit to ensure someone would be available. The service was rated Good following our focused inspection in August and September 2017 and there were no ongoing breaches of the regulations.

West View Short Term Break Service 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.

West View Short Term Break Service is a short stay respite care home without nursing that accommodates up to three adults with learning disabilities at any one time. Accommodation is provided in individual ensuite bedrooms, two of which are downstairs and are adapted for people with mobility needs. Some people who use the service have complex learning and physical disabilities. They may also have different ways of communicating or making their needs known. At the time of the inspection around 20 people had planned short breaks at the service over the

year. They were all funded by statutory services.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered manager. 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 treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Their privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Staff communicated with people in the way they preferred, calling them by their preferred names and being alert to signs that people were happy with whatever was going on at the time.

People were protected from abuse and neglect. Staff understood and met their responsibilities to safeguard people.

Risks to people's personal safety had been assessed and plans were in place to manage identified risks in the least restrictive way possible. People each had a personal emergency evacuation plan that set out clearly the assistance they would need from staff and emergency services personnel in event of a fire or other emergency.

The premises and equipment were kept clean and in good order. People’s individual needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of the premises. The ground floor and garden were wheelchair accessible. Both downstairs bedrooms had ceiling tracking hoists that extended into the ensuite shower rooms.

As far as possible people had the same room whenever they came to stay and the furniture was arranged according to the person’s preference. This helped them feel comfortable and familiar with things, and also to manage visual or mobility impairments as independently as possible.

Peoples' medicines were managed and administered safely.

There were systems to ensure that lessons were learned when things went wrong.

People’s assessments and care plans were reviewed and updated in consultation with them and their families prior to each stay. Assessments and care plans were comprehensive, detailed and individualised.

When people were referred to the service, information was obtained from them, their families and their professionals. They visited for meals and had trial overnight stays to help them, their representatives and the staff assess whether the service was suitable for them.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care plans reflected p

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse.

There were always enough appropriately-skilled staff on duty.

Medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had the knowledge and competence necessary to support people effectively.

The premises were set out in a way that was accessible and helped to promote independence. Areas were adapted for people who used wheelchairs.

People, including those with complex needs, were protected from the risk of poor nutrition, dehydration and swallowing problems.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness.

People received consistent, timely care and support from familiar staff who understood their needs.

Staff were discreet and respected people�s privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People and their families and carers were involved in developing their care plans.

People�s care and support was individualised. People took part in activities of their choice.

People or their families know how to give feedback about their experience of care, including how to raise a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 September 2018

The service was well led.

Managers were available, consistent, and led by example. Staff felt respected, valued and supported.

The service involved people, their family, friends and other supporters in a meaningful way.

There was a strong focus on continuous learning. Quality assurance arrangements were robust and identified concerns and areas for improvement.