Archived: Wensleydale

Updated 15 June 2015

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 12 March 2015. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Before our inspection, we reviewed the information included in the PIR along with other information we held about the service. We contacted the commissioners of the local authority before the inspection visit to gain their views of the service provided at this home.

The six people who lived at this home limited communication skills. This meant they could not tell us about the service, so we asked their relatives for their views.

During the visit we spent time with the six people who lived at the home and observed how staff supported them. We spoke with the registered manager, the assistant manager, two support workers and a housekeeper. We also spoke with a visiting care professional. We looked around the premises and viewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. These included the care records of two people, staff training records and quality monitoring records.

Updated 15 June 2015

Wensleydale is a purpose built bungalow where personal care is provided for up to six people with a learning disability. It is not registered to provide nursing care. There were six people living at this small care home who had lived here for several years.

The last inspection of this home was carried out on 27 June 2013. The service met the regulations we inspected against at that time.

This inspection took place over one day on 12 March 2015.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

People were unable to tell us about the service because of their communication needs. Their relatives made many positive comments about the service. Relatives said people felt “safe” and “comfortable” at the home. Relatives felt included in decisions about their family member’s care.

Staff were clear about how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse. Staff told us they were confident that any concerns would be listened to and investigated to make sure people were protected.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The home had a stable staff team and many staff had worked there for years. This meant they were familiar with people’s individual needs. Staff received relevant training to assist each person in the right way. The provider made sure only suitable staff were employed. Staff helped people manage their medicines and did this in a safe way.

Relatives told us they were “pleased” with the care service. They felt there were enough staff to support people in an individualised way. One relative told us, “There seems to be enough staff because she is always out.” Another relative said “There are enough staff to get people out where they like to go.”

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to make sure they were not restricted unnecessarily. Relatives confirmed they had been fully involved in decisions about people’s capacity and any safety restrictions.

People were supported in the right way with their meals. The menus were based on the foods that staff knew people enjoyed, and most people could point or show staff what they preferred. The home promoted a healthy diet that still met people’s choices, and they went out for meals from time to time.

Relatives had many positive comments to make about the caring and friendly attitude of staff. One relative commented, “They are definitely very caring and kind.” Another relative told us, “The way staff talk to them is lovely. My [family member] goes to hug the staff when they come to pick them up.” A visiting care professional told us, “The staff are definitely caring and compassionate. They engage really well with the people who live here.”

People were encouraged to make their own decisions and choices, for example about activities and clothes. They were treated with dignity and their diversity was respected by staff. One relative commented, “The staff speak on equal terms with my [family member] and treat them with great respect.”

Staff were very knowledgeable about people’s individual needs, preferences, likes and dislikes. There were up to date care records that were personalised to each person and included guidance for staff about people specific needs.

Relatives told us they felt people were well cared for in the home. Each person had a range of social and vocational activities they could take part in. People’s choice about whether to engage in these activities was respected.

Relatives were invited to comment on the service each month and they felt able to give their views about the home at any time. Relatives said they felt comfortable about raising any issues and these were acted upon.

Relatives and staff felt the organisation was well run and the home was well managed. There was an open, approachable and positive culture within the home and in the organisation. There were plans to change the landlord of the building (although the provider would still provide the care service) and relatives and staff said they felt informed and included in discussions about this.