Bulwell

Updated 23 February 2022

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 9 February 2022 and was unannounced.

Updated 23 February 2022

This inspection took place on 7 and 10 September 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the service since the change of provider to Lifeways in September 2017. The service had been previously registered under a different provider.

Wycar Leys Bulwell is a care home for a maximum number of 22 people with learning disabilities. It consists of three buildings which are known as The Cottage, Homestead and Middleton House. There were a total of 19 people accommodated during our inspection.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of this inspection. 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 received safe and effective care from staff. The staff team was a mix of established staff and more recently recruited staff, all had a good understanding of the various types of harm and their roles and responsibilities in reporting any safeguarding concerns.

Risks to people’s individual needs and their home environment had been assessed. Staff had information available about how to meet people’s needs, including action required to reduce and manage known risks. When incidents occurred these were recorded and details updated in people’s care plans.

There had been a recent reduction in core staffing numbers and the service used agency staff to maintain sufficient staffing across the service. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s care needs. Staff were recruited safely. Staff received regular training and supervision and were able to reflect on the care and support they delivered and identified further training requirements.

People receiving support had their rights protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and applications for DoLS had been made appropriately. Staff gained consent from people whenever they could and, where people lacked mental capacity, we saw that arrangements were in place for staff to act in their best interests.

People received appropriate support with their medicines. Staff had received training in supporting people with their medicines and staff had their competency assessed.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their nutritional needs. External health professionals were involved in the person’s care when required.

Care plans were being updated and these reflected people’s individual needs and personal wishes. Where possible people and their representatives were involved in the development of their care plans.

The service encouraged feedback from people or their representatives about the service they received. A complaints process was in place. People were able to express themselves when they were not happy about something. A formal complaints procedure was in place and people’s representatives felt able to make a complaint and felt confident that the management would respond appropriately.

People’s representatives told us they were happy with most aspects of the service provided and spoke positively of staff and registered manager. People received care and support from kind, caring and compassionate staff, who respected their privacy and dignity at all times.

The people, their representatives and the staff team had confidence in the registered manager and the way the service was run. The staff team did not feel supported by the larger organisation.

Systems had been recently introduced to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided but this needed to be sustained. The vision and values of the staff team were caring and person-centred to make sure people were at the heart of the service.