Archived: Westonia Court

Updated 28 February 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 18 January 2017 and was announced. It was carried out by two inspectors.

The provider was given 18 hours’ notice because the service was a small care home for adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We checked the information we held about this service and the service provider. We also contacted the Local Authority. No concerns had been raised and the service met the regulations we inspected against at the last inspection which took place in October 2014.

During our inspection we observed how staff interacted with people who used the service and we observed breakfast, lunch and a variety of activities.

We spoke with five people who used the service, the registered manager, two senior support workers, two support workers and a student on placement.

We reviewed three people’s care records, five medication records, six staff files and records relating to the management of the service, such as quality audits.

Updated 28 February 2017

Westonia Court is a residential care home providing personal care and support for up to eight people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection five people were using the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be whilst remaining safe. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs.

Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed. Staff received an induction process and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people. They were supported with regular supervisions.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable about this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet.

People were supported to access a variety of health professional when required to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities of their choice.

People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place which was accessible to all. Complaint had been responded to appropriately.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below