Archived: Wellpark

Wellpark provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at Wellpark.

The service has been developed and designed 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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

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.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

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.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.

The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.

The service provided safe care to people. One person commented: “The staff keep me safe. I would speak to them if I was worried.” Medicines were safely managed on people’s behalf.

Care files were personalised to reflect people’s personal preferences. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the care and treatment which was right for them.

Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. Staff treated people with dignity and respect when helping them with daily living tasks. The service ensured people led meaningful and fulfilled lives.

There were effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place. People received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and competent.

Staff spoke positively about communication and how the registered manager worked well with them and encouraged their professional development.

A number of methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received and continuous improvements were made in response to the findings.

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 (report published in March 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Wellpark on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

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.

Why the service is rated Good.

People remained safe at the home. There were adequate numbers of suitable staff to meet the needs of the people living there and to spend time socialising with them. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People received their medicines safely.

People continued to receive effective care because staff had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. People’s healthcare needs were monitored by the staff and people had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. 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 home continued to provide a caring service to people. People told us, and we observed that staff were kind and patient. One person told us “I do like living here. I don’t want to leave Wellpark.” Another person said “It’s so nice here. They do nice food. There are menus in the kitchen of the foods we chose.” People were involved in decisions about the care and support they received as far as they were able.

The service remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Care and support was personalised to each person which ensured they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. Complaints were fully investigated and responded to.

The service continued to be well led. There was a new manager in post who was in the process of applying for registration. People told us the new manager was supportive and approachable. The registered manager and provider sought people’s views to make sure people were at the heart of any changes within the home. A member of staff said “(Manager’s name) has been fantastic. He is the strongest manager I have worked with, and the most supportive.” The new manager and provider had monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We found that since the last inspection in December 2012 the home had begun to take action to ensure people's consent was sought and recorded for all of their care and treatment needs. We also found that the appropriate professionals had been consulted and involved when best interest decisions were considered necessary.

We saw that staff understood people's care needs. This was because care plans were in the process of being rewritten in a new format and people's needs, and any risks, had been fully assessed and had been met. A person we spoke with said they were very happy with the support they received and told us 'I like it here.'

The home was well maintained, comfortably furnished and decorated and there were plans to redecorate and make improvements to the enviroment. There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place to ensure they only recruited staff who were suitable for the post. People living in the home were given information and support to help them make a complaint and there was an effective system to manage and act upon complaints.

People experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights, being cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. A sensory area had been created in the garden, for example, for people who spent time there who enjoyed using their sense of touch and smell. One person told us that staff responded quickly when they had a recurrent acute medical problem. The provider had also taken steps to protect people from abuse, which included giving people information to help them protect themselves.

There were effective systems to monitor the quality of the service and manage risks to the welfare of people who used the service and others such as staff. These included seeking and acting on people's views, to improve the service.

When at the home, we found evidence suggesting a personal care service was being provided from the home. As the location was not registered for this regulated activity, we have written to the provider seeking clarification of the situation.