Archived: Wispers Park Care Village

Updated 5 May 2015

We undertook an unannounced focused inspection of Wispers Park Care Village on the 6 March 2015. This inspection was carried out to check that improvements to meet legal requirements planned by the provider had been made following our inspections on the 22, 23 and 27 October 2014. The team inspected the service against all five questions we ask about services: is the service safe, is it effective, is it caring, is it responsive to people’s needs and is it well-led. This is because the service was not meeting numerous legal requirements.

The inspection was undertaken by three inspectors.

During our inspection we spoke with 10 people who used the service, three relatives and five members of staff. We looked at four care plans, staff rotas, audits, and various policies and procedures that were followed by staff. We observed care being provided throughout the day including meal times.

Updated 5 May 2015

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 22, 23 and 27 October 2014. Multiple breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches identified.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they have now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Wispers Park Care Village on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection took place on 6 March 2015 and was unannounced.

Wispers Park Care Village is a nursing home providing personal and nursing care for up to 55 older people some of who are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 22 people were living at the home. The home is divided into separate units with two of those Oak and Willow in use at the time of inspection. The home is a modern addition to an older building which includes a bistro and communal facilities. The home is part of a larger complex which provides more independent living accommodation on the rural outskirts of Haslemere in Surrey.

At the time of our inspection the interim manager had applied to be the registered manager of the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

On this focused inspection we found the service had made improvements and people were now safe. The requirements of the warning notice in relation to the deficiencies in fire safety, personal evacuation plans and staff knowledge of what to do in an emergency had been met.

People told us that they now felt safe; relatives also told us they thought that their family members were safe. Staff showed a good understanding of safeguarding and what to do if they suspected abuse. Incidents and accidents were managed and reported appropriately

Medicines were stored and administered safely. There was a new electronic system used to help manage medicines safely in the home which reduced the risks to people.

Only two units, Oak and Willow, were now used. Staffing levels had been maintained and as staff were no longer covering three units this meant there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Agency staff use had reduced and people told us staffing had improved however there were occasions when call bells had not been answered quickly. One person told us “I feel safe and there are enough staff at the moment”.

Staff had received some training in key areas however not all staff had received up to date training in areas which included dementia awareness and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff told us they felt supported and they had monthly supervision whilst the service made changes.

Records clearly documented what actions staff took to ensure that people‘s healthcare needs were met. Staff described the signs they looked for when people might be unwell and had a good understanding of the care needs of each person. Staff took action when it was identified that people needed medical treatment. A relative told us “My relative seems healthy and they look a lot better than when they were at home”.

People were now supported to eat and drink sufficient, varied food and drinks. Where they had special dietary requirements these were followed. However people also told us that they were not always consulted about the menus provided. Some people told us they usually enjoyed their meal, others said it was “Unappetising”. Nutritional risk assessments had been completed for those that needed it and reviewed regularly. People’s weight was checked regularly, and food and fluid intake was monitored on a daily basis.

Some staff were still not confident about the MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) but were aware of the importance of explaining the reason for people’s care. Staff gained people’s consent before providing support. People’s capacity had now been assessed and recorded.

The environment had been improved on the unit where people were living with dementia. This had been partially redecorated with bold colours on hand rails and there were memory boxes outside people’s rooms to help orientate people.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. They gave reassurance to people when needed. People told us they were treated with respect by the staff. Comments from people were that staff were “Kind” and ”Attentive”. People and their relatives told us that they felt more involved in their care. There were residents and relatives meetings which were welcomed by people.

Care records were reviewed regularly and contained information about people including preferences, likes and dislikes. These were updated where necessary to reflect any changes. Relatives had been invited to attend a review of the care provided and welcomed the opportunity for increased involvement in this.

People and relatives knew who to complain to if they needed to. One relative told us that they were unhappy with the progress of their complaint; the provider had dealt with the only other complaint appropriately.

There were now robust quality assurance processes in place. People and relatives told us they were impressed by the interim manager and the improvements that had been made. One relative told us the interim manager had “Improved the service –previously the place was in such a mess”. Residents and relatives meetings had been introduced so that people’s views could be obtained. Audits that monitored peoples’ health were completed regularly and action taken to improve peoples’ health. Staff were clear about what was expected of them.

We recommend that staffing levels are regularly reviewed to ensure that people’s needs are met in a timely way.