The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Wylye House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

27 Wyndham Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP1 3AB (01722) 338987

Provided and run by:
Five Rivers Child Care Limited

All Inspections

12 and 16 December 2014

During a routine inspection

We last inspected Wylye House in January 2014. At that inspection we found the provider to be in breach of Regulation 12. This meant people were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed. The provider wrote to us with an action plan of improvements that would be made. During this inspection we found the provider had taken steps to make the

Wylye House is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people with a learning disability who may also have additional complex needs. There were three people living at the home at the time of our inspection. The home is a terraced house situated in a residential area of the city and comprises of accommodation over three floors.

The manager was not registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who use the service were unable to tell us directly about their experience of the service, we observed people appeared calm and relaxed during our visit. Relatives told us “I think (my relative) is definitely safe, staff keep in regular contact with me”. Systems were in place to protect people from harm and abuse and staff knew how to follow them. Records we reviewed showed staff reported incidents to the manager, we found that we were not notified of these. Services are required as part of their registration to tell us about important events relating to the care they provide using a notification.This meant the appropriate authorities were not always notified of significant events.

People were protected from risks associated with their care because staff followed the appropriate guidance and procedures. People’s medicines were administered safely. The service had appropriate systems in place to ensure medicines were stored correctly and securely.

Staff knew the people they were supporting, relatives told us “staff have got to know (my relative) well and they look after him very well”. Staff spent time sitting with people and engaging in activities.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are an amendment to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which allow the use of restraint or restrictions but only if they are in the person’s best interest.We observed there was a disempowering approach to supporting people and staff were placing restrictions on people without following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. There were no Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications made for two people living at the home where they were subject to continuous supervision and lacked the option to leave the home without staff supervision.

Staff received appropriate training to understand their role. Staff had completed training to ensure the care and support provided to people was safe. Staff received a comprehensive induction, supervision (one to one meetings with line managers) and training to support them to carry out their roles correctly.

We saw that people’s needs were identified and recorded in clear, individual plans. These were developed with input from the person and people who knew them well. Relatives were confident that they could raise concerns or complaints and they would be listened to. A complaint was made by a person who uses the service, this was acknowledged and investigated by the provider.

The provider and manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. The service had not kept up to date with current best practice and whilst the visions and values of the organisation were available within the home, the staff we spoke with were unable to tell us about them. The manager informed us at the time of our inspection there were plans in place to close the home in February 2015.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

14 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People were relaxed in their environment and looked well supported. There were good interactions between people and members of staff. People participated with a range of social activity provision related to their individual preferences.

People had access to a range of health care services to meet their individual needs. Person centred support plans were in place. These plans were well written, up to date and reflected people's involvement with their development.

Staff were aware of people's nutritional needs. People were able to choose what they wanted to eat and drink. The menus were based on people's preferences. Discussions to ensure healthy options and a variety of foods were undertaken.

The home was generally clean although there were insufficient systems to manage and monitor infection control. The home did not have an infection control lead and infection control audits were not undertaken. Whilst the manager had seen the Department of Health's Code of Practice they had not used it to review the service provided.

A range of up to date records were in place and stored securely. The records were generally well written and fit for purpose. There were policies and procedures, risk assessments and documents which demonstrated the safety of the environment. Support plans and daily handover sheets highlighted people's needs and how they were being met.

26 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the last inspection on 18 December 2012, we identified there was not an effective system in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided to people. We issued a compliance action to ensure the provider made improvements.

The provider sent us an action plan which confirmed they had taken action in relation to the areas we identified.

During this inspection, we found an auditing system had been implemented.

Shortfalls identified during recent audits and at the last inspection were being addressed. This included improved staffing levels, refurbishment of the upstairs bathroom and updated staff training records. Training courses had been scheduled in response to the needs of some members of staff.

The manager had undertaken monthly audits, which were linked to our Essential Standards of Quality and Safety.

The organisation's Quality Assurance Manager had started monthly monitoring visits.

Questionnaires to gain feedback about the service provided had been developed. The questionnaires had been sent to people's families and were in the process of being given to health and social care professionals.

18 December 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit, one person was at work and another was in bed. The two other people were unable to give us detailed feedback about the service, but they were able to tell us they liked living at the home and that the staff were good. To collect experiences of people who used the service we observed their interactions with staff. People were well supported and were fully involved in the day to day running of the home. People enjoyed social and leisure activities and their rights to privacy and dignity were maintained.

Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities. They said they had completed a range of training. Staff told us they were responsible for checking various aspects of the home. Neither the manager or the provider was able to provide us with evidence to show they had a system in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service provided.

The manager was not on duty during our visit, so we contacted them after the visit to request the information that could not be provided to us by other staff on duty on the day. We did not receive the information we requested, so we contacted the manager again. They explained they did not have either the information or documentation requested and had therefore contacted their head office. No further information was forthcoming from either the manager or the provider. We therefore made our judgements on the information we had available.