Archived: Westwinds - Care Home Learning Disabilities

Westwinds – Care home learning disabilities accommodates up to 10 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection nine people were living in the home.

The service was registered before the principles of Registering the Right Support was established. The service was delivered in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.

People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them. Although the home accommodates more people than Registering the Right Support suggests, this was suitable as the home was one large house, and the atmosphere remained homely. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People’s experience of using this service

Staff knew people well and understood their communication. We saw staff supporting people in a kind and sensitive way and relatives told us they were confident their family members were well cared for.

Staff demonstrated person centred values and supported people to be involved in making decisions about their care. Relatives told us they were confident their family members were safe and well supported, particularly with their health issues.

People’s needs were assessed, and care was planned in line with legislation and good practice guidance. The provider was implementing new care planning tools and medicines systems to improve services for people. Records showed people were supported in line with their needs and preferences. People were supported to maintain their relationships and attend activities in their local community.

Risks faced by people while receiving care had been identified, with clear plans in place to ensure people were protected from harm. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. The staff team was very stable, with very low turnover. No new staff had been recruited since our last inspection. The provider’s recruitment policy reflected best practice in ensuring only suitable staff were appointed to work in the home.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There were robust systems for monitoring and improving the quality and safety of the service. There were regular audits and an overall action plan which ensured continuous improvement at the home.

There was a clear management structure in place and relatives told us they thought the service was well run.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published 9 November 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

People had significant communication needs. People mainly used body language, gestures or sounds to communicate, some people could use a few key words to communicate their needs.

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.

There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. There were recruitment practises in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with people.

People were protected from avoidable harm. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to demonstrate that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns.

People’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant and accurate records. However where some people had an as required medicine, there were no guidelines in place to tell staff when and how people should have them. We have made a recommendation.

Staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these. Risk assessments were in place for a variety of tasks such as personal care, use of equipment, health, and the environment and they were updated frequently. The registered manager ensured that actions had been taken after incidents and accidents occurred.

People’s human rights were protected as the registered manager ensured that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. Where people were assessed to lack capacity to make some decisions, mental capacity assessment and best interest meetings had been undertaken. Staff were heard to ask peoples consent before they provided care.

Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected.

People had sufficient to eat and drink. People were offered a choice of what they would like to eat and drink. People’s weights were monitored on a regular basis to ensure that people remained healthy.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. People had regular access to health and social care professionals.

Staff were trained and had sufficient skills and knowledge to support people effectively. There was a training programme in place to meet people’s needs. There was an induction programme in place which included staff undertaking the Care Certificate. Staff received regular supervision.

People were well cared for and positive relationships had been established between people and staff. Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner.

Relatives and health professionals were involved in planning peoples care. People’s choices and views were respected by staff. Staff and the registered manager knew people’s choices and preferences. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People received a personalised service. Care and support was person centred and this was reflected in their care plans. Care plans contained sufficient detail for staff to support people effectively. People were supported to develop their independence.

There were activities in place which people enjoyed. The registered manager told us that they wanted to improve what activities were on offer to people.

The home listened to staff and relative’s views. There was a complaints procedure in place. There had been no complaints since the last inspection.

The management promoted an open and person centred culture. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager. Relatives told us they felt that the management was approachable and responsive.

There were robust procedures in place to monitor, evaluate and improve the quality of care provided. Staff were motivated and aware of their responsibilities. The manager understood the requirements of CQC and sent in appropriate notifications.

We saw that people's consent was obtained where possible before care and treatment was undertaken. We observed that the care given was safe and appropriate and based on effective care planning and risk assessments. This meant that people's individual needs were met and preferences were taken into account.

People were protected from abuse and cared for in a safe and inclusive environment. We noted that there were adequate numbers of skilled and experienced staff to deliver safe and appropriate care. We also found that systems were in place for people and relatives to make a complaint about the service if necessary.

We found that the home was relaxed and friendly.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and with dignity.

Comments received from the relatives included "I am very happy with the care my relative receives at Westwinds, the staff support them very well and try to encourage them to do things for themselves". Another relative said "Westwinds has been a successful placement" and thay have "benefited from moving into the home".

Staff received suitable training to ensure that they had the necessary skills to support the people who lived there.

The family members told us that the service is good at "keeping them in touch" with what is happening to their relatives. One person told us that when they have visited the service "the staff ask for any comments about how they found their relative or the home".

The service has however not distributed a formal Quality Assurance Questionnaire (QA) for the period 2011 to the date of this visit. The manager stated that a QA would be distributed to the family members of the people who live at the home, visitors, staff and to the people who live at Westwinds.