The inspection team consisted of one inspector, a specialist advisor who worked in a senior position within a hospice, a pharmacist inspector and an expert by experience.  An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert for this inspection had experience of a relative who had used hospice services.

At the time of our inspection St Wilfrid’s Hospice had seven people staying in the ‘in patient unit’  a further ten people were attending ‘wellbeing’, and the hospice at home had over 100 people on their contact list. The registered manager told us that although the hospice had 20 beds they currently only used 11. The additional beds were being phased in as the hospice established itself and recruited the required staff and volunteers to do so effectively.

During the visit, we spoke with fourteen people. We were also able to talk to nine relatives and friends who were visiting people within the ‘in patient unit.’ Following the inspection visits we contacted three people who were receiving a service from the ‘hospice at home’ team.

We spoke with nine staff, including the registered manager, and seven volunteers.

We observed some care and support provided both by staff and volunteers within ‘wellbeing’ and communal areas of the hospice. As part of our inspection we looked at a number of records. This included policies and procedures that supported practice including the complaints procedure. We looked at medicine records, staff training records and staff rotas. There were full and extensive records supporting the quality monitoring systems in the home that were viewed. Including notes of meetings and associated action plans. A number of certificates demonstrating maintenance and servicing of equipment and facilities.

We looked at records in paper and electronic format relating to three people receiving care from the ‘hospice at home’ team and two people within the ‘in patient unit’. These included risk assessments, full assessment of needs, care plans and documentation relating to people’s choices around their care.

Before our inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the home that included notifications received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.  We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) and previous inspection reports before the inspection. The PIR was information given to us by the provider. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern.

We last visited the service on 23 November 2012 when we found the service was compliant. This service relocated to a new purpose built location in October 2013.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.