Wellfield House

Updated 16 December 2020

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 coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes. The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

This inspection took place on 23 November 2020 and was announced.

Updated 16 December 2020

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 17 September 2018.

Wellfield House is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 23 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. The home is situated in a residential area of Whalley Range, Manchester and is close to public transport and the motorway network. The home was originally four terraced house which have been converted into one detached property. At the time of this inspection, there were 20 people living at the service.

Wellfield House is a 'care home', people in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

During the last inspection of Wellfield House on the 15 March 2016 we found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We found the premises were not as safe as they should have been because some fire exits were obstructed, window restrictors were not in place on the second-floor bathroom windows and some radiators were not protected with covers. This placed the health and safety of people at risk of harm. The service was rated as good overall and requires improvement in safe.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to tell us what they intended to do and by when to improve the key question; is the service safe to at least good. At this inspection, we found that required improvements had been made.

We found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going 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 overall.

Why the service is rated good.

The home had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) who was present on the day of the 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.

Equipment checks were undertaken regularly and safety equipment, such as fire extinguishers and alarms. However, we found the provider did not have a risk assessment in relation to legionella to identify and assess any risks in the homes water system. During the inspection we were provided with assurances from the director that the home would ensure a legionella risk assessment would soon be in place. The registered manager showed us an email confirming the director had commissioned an external provider to complete this risk assessment in October 2018.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with respect. We observed many positive and caring interactions throughout the inspection. Staff knew people's likes and dislikes which helped them provide individualised care for people.

People's needs were assessed before they moved to the home and care plans were in place to inform staff of their needs and how they should be met. Staff worked with other health care professionals to maintain people's health and wellbeing.

There were effective and established systems in place to safeguard people from abuse and individual risk was fully assessed and reviewed. Accidents and incidents were recorded and appropriate actions taken.

Medicines management and administration processes were reviewed during the inspection and found to be safe.

We found that staffing levels were adequate to meet people's needs. A dependency tool was used to determine staffing levels and we saw that staff responded quickly to people when they needed attention.

Recruitment practices were safe and records confirmed this. Staff received induction and on-going training to enable them to meet the needs of people they supported effectively. Staff were supported by way of regular supervision, appraisal and access to management.

People's rights were protected. The registered manager was knowledgeable about their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were only deprived of their liberty if this had been authorised by the appropriate body or where applications had been made to do so.

People had access to a wide range of activities which were provided seven days a week and were well supported by staff to access the community and activities further afield.

Quality assurance practices were robust and taking place regularly.