Waverley Lodge Nursing Home

Updated 7 November 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 inspection site visit took place on 13 October 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the home had sent us. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive.

We used the information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with six people who used the service and three relatives. We spoke with a health and social care professional and four staff.

We spoke with the director of care, registered manager and a senior nurse. We reviewed four people’s care files, three medicine administration records, policies, risk assessments, health and safety records, consent to care and quality audits. We looked at four staff files, the recruitment process, complaints, training and supervision records.

We walked around the building and observed care practice and interactions between staff and people who live there. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) at meal times. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 7 November 2018

The inspection took place on 13 October 2018 and was unannounced.

Waverley Lodge Nursing Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as 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 is registered to accommodate 26 people and specialises in providing care, treatment and support for people living with physical disabilities. The home was split over two floors with the first floor accessible by stairs or a lift. There was a large open plan lounge and dining room which led out onto a large decked patio. There was ramp access to the outside areas. There were 26 people living at the home at time of inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. 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 ongoing 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.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff received training and understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the who to report this to both internally and externally if abuse was suspected.

Staffing levels were adequate to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Registered nurses had the necessary permissions to practice.

Risk assessments were individual and detailed which meant that staff understood safe practices which helped keep people safe.

Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained and competent staff. Medication stock checks took place together with regular audits to ensure safety with medicines.

People told us the home was clean and staff understood their responsibilities in regard to infection prevention and control.

People had been involved in assessments of care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required. The service worked well with outside professionals.

People were involved in what they had to eat and drink. Assessments and specialist input was sought where people required it so people could be safe when eating and drinking. People were happy with the quality, variety and quantity of the food.

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 supported this practice.

The registered manager actively sought to work in partnership with other organisations to improve outcomes for people using the service.

Care and support was provided by staff who had received an induction and continual learning that enabled them to carry out their role effectively. Staff felt supported by the management and received regular supervision and they felt confident in their work.

People, their relatives and professionals described the staff as wonderful, kind and caring.

People had their dignity and privacy respected and independence was encouraged.

People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about their individual needs and how they communicated. Their life histories were detailed and they had been consulted.

The home had a complaints process and people were aware of it and knew how to make a complaint. The service actively encouraged feedback from people, relatives and staff.

People’s end of life needs were discussed and revisited regularly. The service had their own end of life pathway which they used with input from the GP and the palliative care team.

Activities were provided and people were involved in choosing them. Individual activities were provided for those that preferred them. The service actively encouraged people to access the community.

Relatives and professionals had confidence in the service. The home had an open and positive culture that encouraged the involvement of everyone.

Leadership was visible within the home. Staff spoke positively about the management team and felt supported.

There were effective quality assurance and auditing processes in place and they contributed to service improvements. Action plans were carried out and those responsible kept things up to date.

The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services.