Winash Rest Home

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.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People are 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.

Staffing levels were safe. Staff were caring, consistent and experienced. People valued that staff were respectful, treated them as individuals and supported their independence.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. Risk assessments were in place to support people safely whilst ensuring people’s independence was retained. Care records were person centred and supported people to maintain their chosen lifestyle and interests.

People’s health needs were met and good relationships were established with other health and social care professionals. Staff had effective induction, training and supervision.

The service facilitated meaningful activities. Activities stimulated people and facilitated social contact. People regularly accessed the community independently or with support. Community links and initiatives were established and were continually being developed.

Positive feedback was received about how the service was led and managed. People were actively involved with making choices about the service provision. People were encouraged and supported to make their own decisions.

Communication and feedback systems were in place for people, staff and relatives. Such as meetings, newsletters and surveys.

There was a positive staff culture and atmosphere within the service. Staff were valued and supported. Systems were in place to monitor and review the quality of the service.

Regular checks of the environment and premises were conducted. The service was clean and tidy.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

The inspection took place on 26 April 2016 and was unannounced.

There were two registered managers in post. One of the registered managers was also the provider. 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 and their relatives said the home was a safe place. Systems were in place to protect people from harm and abuse and staff knew how to follow them. The service had systems to ensure medicines were administered and stored correctly and securely.

Staffing levels were good and people also received good support from health and social care professionals. Risk assessments had been carried out and they contained guidance for staff on protecting people.

People were complimentary of the food provided. Where people required specialised diets these were prepared appropriately.

People’s rights were protected because the home followed the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 where people lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Staff were well supported and well trained. Staff understood people's needs and provided the care and support they needed.

Staff had built trusting relationships with people. People were happy with the care they received. Staff interactions with people were positive and caring.

There were organised activities and people were able to choose to socialise or spend time alone.

People made choices about their day to day lives. They were part of their community and were encouraged to be as independent as they could be.

People, and those close to them, were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. There was good communication with people's relatives. Relatives visited regularly and felt their views were listened to and acted on.

People liked and trusted the registered manager and provider. All staff worked hard to provide the best level of care possible to people. The aims of the service were well defined and adopted by the staff team.

There were quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and safety and plan on-going improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people's views about their care and the running of the home.

We received many positive comments about the care and support. This included “They are very helpful and caring. This place was recommended to me as the best place around here, I would recommend it too” and “The girls (staff) are lovely, they are excellent”, “they are lovely, bright and breezy, nothing is too much trouble”.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People were involved in making decisions about their care and had access to other health care professionals.

People were supported with activities both in the home and the local community on a regular basis. People were provided with a nutritious diet, which was varied.

Medicines were safely administered to people living in the home. This was because there were systems in place to audit the medication and staff had received training.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. This ensured people were protected against inappropriate staff supporting them. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting. They recognised that each person was individual.

There were suitable systems in place to check the quality of care and the overall service people received. People’s views were sought to improve the service periodically.