Waterside House

Updated 6 February 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by two inspectors and one assistant inspector. There was also an Expert by Experience who supported the inspection. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Waterside House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. However, there was an acting manager and the provider was in the process of recruiting a manager with the intention of them becoming registered. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We looked at the information we held about the service, such as the notifications submitted. Notifications are events the provider has to tell us about by law, such as deaths, serious injuries or safeguarding allegations. We asked the local authority and Healthwatch if they had any information to share with us about the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 13 people who used the service and seven relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with eight members of care staff including some senior carers. We also spoke with laundry staff, the acting manager and area manager. We made observations in communal areas to check how people were being supported.

We reviewed a range of records. This included seven people’s care records and multiple medication records. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including audits, complaints and safeguarding records were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We also looked at training data.

Updated 6 February 2020

About the service

Waterside House is a purpose built home providing personal care to 51 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 60 people. Waterside House accommodates people across four separate wings, each of which has separate adapted facilities. One of the wings specialises in providing care to people living with dementia.

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

People were supported in a person-focused environment and systems in place ensured improvements were identified and made. People were given their medicines safely, we have made a recommendation about ensuring there is enough guidance for staff for ‘when required’ medicines. People felt safe and staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Risks to peoples’ health and well-being were assessed and planned for to help keep them safe and lessons were learned when things had gone wrong. People were supported by enough staff, who knew their needs. Staff were recruited safely. People were protected from the risk of cross infection.

People were supported by trained staff who felt supported in their role. Staff had guidance about peoples’ health conditions and they were supported in relation to these. People could access other health professionals when needed. People enjoyed the food and drink and had choices suitable for their needs. The building and environment was suitable for those living there and further improvements were being made to the décor and having memory boxes on all bedroom entrances. 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 were supported by a caring staff team who treated them with dignity and helped them remain independent. People were involved in decisions about their care. We have made a recommendation about ensuring end of life plans are in place. People had personalised plans in place which were reviewed and staff knew people well. People had access to a range of activities to partake in and work was ongoing to help people achieve a dream day out or activity. People were supported to communicate in a way that suited them. People and relatives felt able to complain and concerns were investigated and improvements made.

Systems were in place to monitor the service and identify areas for improvements, such as for medicines, care files, oversight of health conditions and the environment. We observed one person being given food which did not meet their beliefs, so we have made a recommendation to ensure all staff are aware of people’s beliefs and to follow these. People, relatives and staff were engaged in the service and encouraged to feedback. The provider had a vision for their services to ensure people were supported well and there was a positive culture. The acting manager was aware of their responsibility regarding duty of candour. The previous ratings was being displayed and notifications were being submitted as necessary. The service worked in partnership with other organisations.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good overall, with requires improvement in safe (published 2 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.