We carried out a review of the data available to us about Worting Road (The Whispers) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Worting Road (The Whispers), you can give feedback on this service.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
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 was last inspected in August 2016. At that inspection, we found a breach Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This was because the provider had not ensured that mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were recorded when people were unable to make decisions about managing their finances and medicines. At this inspection we found the required improvements had been made to meet the requirements of the regulation.
At the inspection carried out in August 2016 we rated the service as good overall. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People were protected from the risk of abuse by staff who had the knowledge and skills to identify safeguarding concerns and act on them. Risks to people's health and well-being had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise the risks. Regular checks were made regarding the safety of the premises and the provider had plans in place to manage foreseeable emergencies. Medicines were managed and administered safely.
People benefitted from receiving support from a staff team who were well supported and had been trained in the skills necessary to fulfil their role. Staff monitored people's physical and emotional wellbeing and ensured support was in place to meet their individual needs. When necessary, staff contacted health and social care professionals for guidance and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People’s nutrition and hydration was monitored and staff supported them to have a varied diet.
Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner. They involved people in choices around their daily living. People's independence was promoted and people were encouraged to be involved in the service. People were relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff, they did not hesitate to seek support and assistance when required. People were respected and their privacy and dignity were maintained. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends and relatives told us they were made welcome whenever they visited.
People's support plans were person centred and contained detailed information specific to each individual, including people's likes, dislikes, cultural and spiritual preferences. People had opportunities to take part in activities of their choice and follow their hobbies and interests. The provider made people and their relatives aware of how a complaint may be raised.
The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. People, their relatives and staff had opportunities to feedback their views on the quality of the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Worting Road (The Whispers), to be referred to as The Whispers throughout this report, is a care home which provides residential care for up to eight older adults with learning disabilities. People receiving the service also live with complex emotional and behavioural needs including autism. Some people living at the service also had additional health conditions such as epilepsy and cerebral palsy. The care home comprises of two floors with its own secure rear garden and is situated on the outskirts of Basingstoke town centre. At the time of the inspection seven people were using the service.
Care was provided by support workers who will be referred to as staff throughout the duration of this report.
The Whispers has a registered manager in post. 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.
People had not always been appropriately assessed to ensure they were able to make decisions regarding managing their own finances and medication. Processes were not in place to ensure that where people were able to manage these risks independently they had been supported to do so.
However in other areas people, where possible, were supported by staff to make their own decisions. Staff were able to demonstrate that they complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when supporting people during their daily interactions. This involved making decisions on behalf of people who lacked the capacity to make a specific decision for themselves. The home promoted the use of advocates where people were unable to make key decisions in their life. This is a legal right for people who lack mental capacity and who do not have an appropriate family member of friend to represent their views about health issues and where people wished to live.
People and relatives of those using the service told us they felt they and their family members were kept safe. Staff understood and followed the provider’s guidance to enable them to recognise and address any safeguarding concerns about people.
People’s safety was promoted because risks that may cause them harm had been identified and guidance provided to manage these appropriately. People were assisted by staff who encouraged them to remain independent. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to keep people safe.
People were kept safe as the provider ensured sufficient numbers of staff were deployed in order to meet people’s needs in a timely fashion. In the event of unplanned staff sickness the provider sought to use existing staff including the registered manager to deliver care to ensure familiarity to those receiving the service.
Contingency plans were in place to ensure the safe delivery of people’s care in the event of adverse situations such as large scale staff sickness or accommodation loss due to fire or floods.
People were protected from the unsafe administration of medicines. Staff responsible for administering medicines had received additional training to ensure people’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of correctly. Staff skills in medicines management were regularly reviewed by managerial staff to ensure they remained competent to administer people’s medicines safely.
The provider used robust recruitment processes to ensure people were protected from the employment of unsuitable staff.
New staff induction training was followed by a period of time working with experienced colleagues to ensure they had the skills and confidence required to support people safely.
People were supported by staff who had up the most relevant up to date training available which was regularly reviewed to ensure staff had the skills to proactively meet people’s individual needs.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager showed an understanding of what constituted a deprivation of person’s liberty. Appropriate authorisations had been granted by the relevant supervisory body to ensure people were not being unlawfully restricted.
People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their nutrition and hydration needs. People were involved in developing the home’s menus and were able to choose their meal preferences. We saw that people enjoyed what was provided. People were supported to participate in meal times with the guidance provided by health care professionals being followed. People’s food and drink preferences and eating support required were understood and appropriately provided by staff.
People’s health needs were met as the staff and the registered manager had detailed knowledge of the people they were supporting. Staff promptly engaged with healthcare agencies and professionals when required. This was to ensure people’s identified health care needs were met and to maintain people’s safety and welfare.
Staff had taken time to develop close relationships with the people they were assisting. Staff understood people’s communication needs and used non-verbal communication methods where required to interact with people. These were practically demonstrated by the registered manager and staff.
People received personalised and respectful care from staff who understood their care needs. People had care and support which was delivered by staff using the guidance provided in individualised support plans. Support plans contained detailed information to assist staff to provide care in a manner that respected each person’s individual requirements. People were encouraged and supported by staff to make choices about their care including how they spent their day within the home or in the community.
Relatives knew how to complain and told us they would do so if required. Procedures were in place for the registered manager to monitor, investigate and respond to complaints in an effective way. Relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback on the quality of the service during regular meetings with staff and the registered manager.
People were supported to participate in activities to enable them to live meaningful lives and prevent them experiencing social isolation. A range of activities were available to people to enrich their daily lives. The provider also sought to support people to enable them to take holidays therefore offering them opportunities to live full and enjoyable lives. The staff were motivated to ensure that people were able to participate in a wide range of external activities and encouraged them to participate in external day trips they knew people would enjoy.
The registered manager fulfilled their legal requirements by informing the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of notifiable incidents which occurred at the service. Notifiable incidents are those where significant events happened. This allowed the CQC to monitor that appropriate action was taken to keep people safe.
Relatives told us and we saw that the home had a confident registered manager and staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager. The registered manager provided strong positive leadership and promoted a culture which focused on providing person-centred care to people within a homely environment whilst promoting their independence. These values were supported by staff and evidenced in practice.
Quality assurance processes were in place to ensure that people, staff and relatives could provide feedback on the quality of the service provided. People were assisted by staff that encouraged them to raise concerns with them and the registered manager. The provider routinely and regularly monitored the quality of the service being provided in order to drive continuous improvement.
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the end of the full version of this report.
We carried out this inspection on 27 November 2014. It was unannounced, which meant that people, staff and the provider were not aware we would be visiting.
Voyage 1 Limited – 358 Worting Road (The Whispers) provides residential care for up to eight people with learning disabilities, and for people with learning disabilities requiring care and support in the community. At the time of our inspection eight people lived in the home, and two other people were supported to live in their own accommodation in the local community. The home consisted of two floors, with ensuite bedrooms and a communal bath or shower room on the first floor. Communal areas on the ground floor included the kitchen, lounge and dining room. Stairs provided access between floors, and handrails provided support for people to access all areas of the home. All the people living in the home were able to use the stairs safely. People also had access to the fenced garden, with seating, a barbeque and vegetable patch.
The service has a registered manager in post. 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’s safety was promoted because staff understood and followed safe practices. They were able to identify signs of abuse and understood how to report their concerns should people be at risk of abuse. The provider had identified risks affecting people’s safety and had put appropriate measures in place to reduce the risk of harm, including when people’s behaviour put them or others at risk.
People were supported by staff who were of good character and appropriately skilled. The provider implemented effective recruitment processes and had undertaken the relevant employment checks. Sufficient staff were employed to meet people’s needs and wishes. People received their medicines safely. The provider ensured medicines were stored, administered and disposed of appropriately.
People were supported by trained staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs effectively. Specialist training was provided to enable staff to support people’s specific health needs. Staff received the support they needed to share good practice, raise concerns and develop their understanding of the support people required.
The provider involved health and social care professionals when necessary, and followed their advice and guidance. This included making decisions on behalf of people when they lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves about important matters. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The provider had followed the correct process of submitting applications to the local authority for a DoLS where it was identified this was required to keep people safe. At the time of the inspection the provider was awaiting the outcome of a DoLS application for four people.
People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and eat safely. Risks that may affect people’s nutrition and wellbeing, such as choking, were identified and managed effectively. People’s health needs were met. Those with medical conditions were supported to attend health monitoring appointments. People received routine health checks so that any health concerns could be identified early and plans put in place to keep them healthy.
People were supported by caring and respectful staff. They appeared happy and content in their home. Staff understood people’s wishes and preferences, and took care to meet these. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.
People were involved in the running of the home. Their views were gained through meetings and surveys, and care was reviewed and updated in response to people’s comments, wishes and needs. People were supported to attend activities of their choice.
The registered manager was respected and valued by people, relatives and staff. The values underpinning people’s care were shared and displayed through staff actions. Regular quality and risk audits ensured issues affecting people’s care had been identified, and actions were taken to drive improvements to the quality of care people received.
We spoke with staff and a tenant of the supported living service. Staff explained the support that was provided to people. We spoke with one of the tenants who told us they were happy. They said they liked the staff and had lots of activities planned which staff would support them to do.
We saw that the support offered to people reflected what was documented in their care plans. We saw that there was a wide range of activities available for people to take part in and all had been risk assessed to ensure people's safety.
People were able to help themselves to food and drink or were assisted by staff where necessary. There was a varied menu which was put together with the people who lived in the home. People's meal choices were respected however staff did offer guidance where a choice may have had a negative impact on their health.
Staff underwent the necessary checks before starting work and there was an effective recruitment and selection procedure.
The provider had an effective system to identify, assess and manage risks to health, safety and welfare.
We saw that the care and support plans were current and regularly reviewed. They reflected the support that people were receiving. We spoke with four members of staff who were able to demonstrate that they knew how to support each individual in the house. People had busy activity schedules which were planned with them daily. One staff member told us that at times there weren't enough staff to do activities outside of the house. They said when this happened an activity took place within the house such as games or karaoke.
Staff members were aware of the importance of safeguarding. Staff were supported to perform their roles by each other and senior staff. Their training was up to date. There were regular staff meetings where they were encouraged to raise issues and develop ideas.
There was an effective audit system in place. The provider also monitored incidents, accidents, compliments and complaints and learnt from them.