This inspection was unannounced and carried out on 17 March 2015. A second, announced day of inspection took place on 23 March 2015. We had last inspected the service on 20 June 2013 and at that inspection we found there were no breaches of legal requirements.
The Whinnies is a care home which provides support and care for up to three people with learning and physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were two people using the service.
A registered manager was in place, and our records showed she had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2010. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 the relative we spoke with told us the home was a safe place to live. During our time in the home we saw people were relaxed in their environment and with the staff who supported them.
Staff had received training in identifying and protecting people from abuse and were able to tell us the procedures and policies that they would follow if they had any concerns about how people were being treated. Processes and procedures were in place to manage people’s finances safely and staff’s contact with people’s monies was monitored to ensure it was appropriate.
Risks had been assessed and where possible actions had been taken to reduce the likelihood of these risks presenting themselves. Accidents and incidents were recorded and the manager told us there was a system in place to review any accidents or incidents to identify if any trends were emerging.
Plans were in place to deal with emergencies such as a fire within the home, and these plans were practiced with people who used the service and staff on a regular basis so people and staff knew how to respond. Each person who used the service had their own detailed emergency evacuation plan which took into consideration their communication needs and the way they responded to emergencies. These plans provided staff with valuable information designed to be used in a time critical situation.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and processes were in place to cover any short notice staff shortages due to sickness. Appropriate checks had been carried out before staff started working within the home, to ensure they had the necessary experience to work with people and they were of good character.
Medicines were managed appropriately. Staff had been trained and their competency to administer medication safely had been assessed.
The service was effective. Staff training was monitored, and we saw all essential care and safety training was up to date. In addition, staff had undertaken training courses based on the individual needs of people who used the service and staff we talked with spoke highly of the training opportunities and the support they received. Supervision sessions, where staff met with senior staff members to discuss their performance, were held regularly. There was an annual appraisal system in place and evidence to show that appraisals were up to date.
Staff understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and they were able to tell us how they applied this in practice. Actions had been taken to ensure that people were not unnecessarily or unlawfully deprived of their liberty and records showed that the MCA had been applied correctly.
We observed people were asked for their consent throughout our visit, and records showed people had signed their care records where they were able to. People were able to make choices about their care and about how they lived their lives.
Through our observations we saw staff had good relationships with people who used the service. Staff knew people well and we watched staff sharing jokes with people. People who used the service and a relative told us staff were kind.
Information was presented in a way that people could understand. Throughout our visit we saw staff explain things to people clearly and they checked people’s understanding. All of the information in people’s care plans and displayed within the home was in an ‘Easy Read’ format which included pictures to help people understand the information. One person who used the service had used an independent advocate known as an IMCA. An IMCA’s role is to support people who lack capacity to make important decisions about their care. We saw the IMCA had been contacted and acted on the person’s behalf in some key decisions they had made.
Staff treated people were treated with dignity and respect, and care records promoted people’s right to privacy. People were encouraged to maintain and develop their independent skills. They worked with staff to identify goals to work towards over a six to 12 month period. Their progress was monitored and successes celebrated as they achieved tasks whilst working towards their goals.
Care records were clear and specific to people’s needs, providing a good level of detail, so that staff had the information to support people consistently. People’s health needs were monitored and records showed they attended appointments with a range of healthcare professionals such as GP’s, dentists and opticians at least once a year, and more frequently where their needs changed.
People took part in a range of activities both inside the home and within the community. They accessed local groups, took part in arts and crafts classes and met with friends and family.
People had been given information about how to make a complaint if they needed to, however no complaints had been made in the 12 months prior to our inspection. The relative we spoke with told us they had never needed to make a complaint. We saw from the home’s compliments book that staff from other homes and healthcare professionals had recorded positive details about their experiences with the home.
The relative we spoke with told us that the registered manager was “very good”, and staff told us the organisation was supportive. Systems were in place to ensure that staff were aware of key policies, procedures and emergency plans before they worked in the home without the manager or senior support worker. A 24 hours on-call telephone line was in place so staff could contact a manager whenever they needed one.
The manager monitored the quality of the service through regular checks and audits. We saw people and staff were asked for their feedback about how the service was performing.
The home had strong links with other care services and the local community. They held events within their grounds where local groups and people who lived close to the service were invited to attend. The grounds of the home were extensive and other care services were allocated land they used for allotments. The manager and staff told us about the positive impact this had had, on people who used the service as it had broadened their social experiences.