Archived: Weetslade Court

Updated 16 March 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. At our last inspection of this service in August 2016 the provider was found to be in breach of Regulations 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, namely, ‘Safe care and treatment’ and ‘Good governance’. This inspection was undertaken to check that improvements to meet the legal requirements of these regulations, had been made. We inspected the service against two of the five questions we ask about services: is the service safe and is the service well led.

This focused inspection took place on 14 February 2017 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one inspector.

Prior to our inspection we reviewed all of the information that we held about the service within the Commission. We obtained feedback about the service from North Tyneside contracts and commissioning team, and North Tyneside safeguarding adults team. We used the information that we had gathered and reviewed, to inform the planning of this inspection.

During our inspection we spoke with the manager, the deputy manager, two members of the care staff team and two people who used the service. We carried out observations around the premises and reviewed records related to people’s care, the management of medicines, auditing and governance.

Updated 16 March 2017

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service in August 2016 at which two breaches of legal requirements were found. These breaches related to Regulations 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, entitled ‘Safe care and treatment’ and ‘Good governance’. We issued a warning notice in relation to the breach in Regulation 17, setting a date by which the provider must achieve compliance with this regulation. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider created an action plan about what steps they would take to meet the legal requirements in respect of the breach of Regulation 12 and by what date compliance would be achieved.

We undertook this focused inspection to check if the provider was now meeting legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Weetslade Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Weetslade Court is an assisted supported living service based in Wideopen, North Tyneside. The people accommodated at the service receive a range of personal care, from minimal support such as being prompted to wash, to more extensive practical support. Some people are living with a range of physical and cognitive impairments. People live in their own individual flats and have 24 hour personal care and support available to them from a team of care staff based within the building. There are communal areas and restaurant facilities available, as well as activities provided on a daily basis.

This focused inspection took place on 14 February 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the provider, manager and care staff did not know we would be visiting.

At the time of our visit a manager was in post who was in the process of applying to the Commission to become the registered manager of the service. 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.

We did not review all of the key lines of enquiry in the safe and well led domains. This was because at our last comprehensive inspection, legal requirements in relation to the other regulations that fall within these domains, had already been met and incorporated into the overall rating.

We found at this visit that improvements had been made in relation to both of the regulations that had previously been breached, although some further work around the management of medicines, risk assessment documentation and governance was necessary to ensure improvements continued and reflected best practice guidance. We have not changed the ratings in the relevant domains and the overall rating of the service at this inspection, as we need to be sure that improvements continue to be made. We also need to be satisfied that those improvements implemented to date, are sustained in the long term.

Risks that people were exposed to in their daily lives had been assessed and risk assessments drafted to ensure that staff had relevant and pertinent information available to them to support people safely. However, some of these risk assessments would benefit from being expanded to include more specific person-centred detail. We fed this back to the manager who told us that this would be addressed promptly.

The management of medicines had improved and where there had been gaps in recording about the medicines that people had been offered, refused or not offered for some reason, these had reduced to a lower level. In addition, explanations about these gaps and why they existed could be found in people's daily notes which reflected the care they had received each day. People's medicines were appropriately stored and systems were in place to book medicines into and out of the service, for example, when they were ready for disposal. The provider's medicines policy needed to be reviewed as it did not contain clear procedures about the actions staff should take when people refused their medicines. The manager told us they would review this policy and all other areas of medicines management so that improvements continued.

At our last inspection the manager post at the service was vacant. Since our last visit a new manager has been recruited, who has applied to the Commission to be the registered manager for the service. The new manager displayed a positive approach to the service and a willingness to drive improvements across the board. An action plan had been created which was regularly reviewed and updated to reflect the current improvements made in relation to set objectives. Auditing within the service had improved and external management input from a regional manager and members of the quality team from the provider's head office, had been introduced. This had led to increased governance and management oversight of the service delivered. Paperwork had been reviewed since our last visit and staff competencies in medicines administration and moving and handling had been assessed. The manager shared with us their plans for the further development of the service. This included some new tools they planned to introduce imminently, designed to encourage reflective practice by staff and lead to an improved handover of information.

At our last visit to the service there were no formal feedback tools in place via which the provider could measure the satisfaction levels of people who used the service and other third parties who engaged with the service. At this visit we found surveys had been introduced about various elements of the service, and these had been sent out to people who used the service in December 2016 and January 2017. We saw that where people had given negative feedback about the activities provision within the service, action had been taken by the manager to address this. The manager told us that there were plans in place to expand surveys to people's relatives and external healthcare professionals.