Whittingham House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe - this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. We assessed a total of 5 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. At this assessment this key question has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives told us they felt confident speaking with staff at the service if they had any concerns. A relative told us, “I can talk to the manager whenever I need to, and I don’t have to think twice before raising a concern.” However, a person told us, “There are set times for drinks and meals, and I can’t have anything in between. I haven’t discussed this with anyone.” The registered manager told us they would encourage staff to ask people for a snack or drink in between mealtimes, especially for people who prefer to stay in their bedroom.

There was a strong learning culture at the service. Staff were supported with their personal development and learning. The registered manager shared learning with staff from incidents, accidents, complaints and safeguarding so that the service could continually improve and develop positive outcomes for people.

The registered manager had processes in place to learn from accident incidents and safeguarding concerns at the service. Staff had received training in how to report any issues and had the systems available to them to raise alerts directly with senior staff. The registered manager fully investigated any issues and lessons learned or changes needed to practice was implemented. Information was shared with staff through supervisions and staff meetings. However, lessons learnt from a recent incident had not been shared with staff during a staff meeting. The registered manager told us this information would be shared with staff at the next staff meeting.

People and relatives told us they were happy with their transition and admission to the service. A relative told us, “The transition was seamless, a breath of fresh air. We had a very positive experience.” Another relative told us, “I was shown the place before sending [relative] here and we had a very positive experience. I can’t find any faults. They are all extremely kind and caring.”

Staff told us they read through the care plans to ensure they had all the information they needed to provide support safely.

We received positive feedback from partners. A health professional told us, "The service are working hard to drive improvements. There has been a lot of positive changes since the new manager, and I have no concerns. Management are approachable and listen to any feedback we give them."

The registered manager told us they would carry out an initial assessment when taking on any new packages. During this assessment a thorough assessment was carried out. Support needs were identified, a detailed care plan and risk assessment put in place for staff to follow.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were cared for in safe environments that were designed to meet their needs. A relative told us, “[Relative] is living in a safe environment. I have no concerns.” People and relatives were positive about the environment. People and relatives were happy with the facilities they had available.

The environment was generally safe. However, on the ground floor, we found a large PVC bathroom door containing a frosted glass panel which posed a potential risk to people’s privacy and dignity as it did not provide adequate discretion. The registered manager told us they would address this issue immediately.

The environment was purpose built to meet the needs of people living there. Maintenance staff were employed to ensure the premises were well-maintained and safe. There were systems in place to ensure any maintenance needed was responded to promptly. Records of checks were up to date which had been carried out on equipment and the premises.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We received positive feedback from people and relatives. A person told us, “It always so clean here and there are never an unpleasant smells.” A relative told us, “There are always staff cleaning bedrooms and communal areas, and staff always have their PPE on.”

The service was mostly clean and tidy with no odours. However, we found bins in the bathrooms did not have lids on them and dirty toilet brushes in people’s ensuites. There was also items such as a razor, air freshener, shampoo and prescription creams left in communal bathrooms. We also found a rusty chair frame in a person’s bathroom. Rust can harbour bacteria, making it a potential source of infection. Following the site visit, the registered manager completed a health and safety audit and addressed the concerns identified on this assessment.

Staff had personal protection equipment situated throughout the service giving them easy access to wear when needed. The registered manager carried out regular checks and completed regular audits to monitor the cleanliness of the service. However, the audits did not have any dates for actions to be completed and details of who the actions needed to be completed by were also not recorded. The audits did not identify the shortfalls found on this assessment.

People and relatives did not have any concerns with how their medicines were administered. People were given their medicines safely and as prescribed, and it was recorded on their medicine administration record (MAR).

Staff had received training in managing medicines and had their competency checked. A member of staff told us, “I had my medicines training, and my manager carried out observations and checked my competency.” Staff we spoke to were knowledgeable about the people in the service and their medicines needs. Staff told us that the GP visits the home weekly as well as when needed to review patients. The GP was visiting the service on the day of our site visit.

There were processes in place to ensure that people received medicines safely. The deputy manager told us they recorded when medicines were given on a medicines administration record (MAR). People were prescribed medication in blister packs. However, we found multiple boxes of additional medicines kept in the medication trolley which had not been removed once medication had been added to the blister pack. Staff require a clear processes to ensure unused medication is returned in a timely manner. The deputy manager and senior team leaders completed weekly and monthly medication audits however, the medication audits did not identify the stock check concerns we found on this assessment. Following the site visit, the registered manager completed a medication audit and addressed the concerns identified.