We carried out a review of the data available to us about Welland House - Occupation Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Welland House - Occupation Road, you can give feedback on this service.
On the day of our inspection 9 people were using the service.
The care service had not originally been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. However, people were given choices and their independence and participation within the local community encouraged.
At our last inspection in June 2016 we rated the service ‘good.’ At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of ‘good’. However, the service was rated ‘requires improvement for ‘well led’ at this inspection. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
The service did not always notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of certain events and incidents, as required. We found some safeguarding alerts had been raised by the service to the local authority, but they had not been sent in to the CQC to notify us.
There was a registered manager in post, although they were not available on the day of our 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.
Staff had a good understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse and incidents of concern. Risk assessments were in place to manage potential risks within people’s lives, whilst also promoting their independence.
Staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service. Adequate staffing levels were in place. We saw that staffing support matched the level of assessed needs within the service during our inspection.
Staff induction training and on-going training was provided to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and support they needed to perform their roles. Specialist training was provided to make sure that people’s needs were met and they were supported effectively with any complex needs they may have.
Staff were well supported by the registered manager and senior team, and had regular one to one
supervisions. The staff we spoke with were all positive about the senior staff and management in place, and were happy with the support they received.
People's consent was gained when possible, before any care was provided. Relatives of people and social work professionals were involved in best interest meetings for people as and when required.
Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and wishes. Care plans reflected people’s likes and dislikes, and we saw that staff spoke with people in a friendly manner.
People were involved in the aspects of their own care they were able to be. People and their family were involved in reviewing their care and making any necessary changes.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service as and when it developed and had a process in place which ensured people could raise any complaints or concerns. Concerns were acted upon promptly and lessons were learned through positive communication.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our 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.
People felt safe in the home. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed and recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff unsuited to the job.
Care records contained risk assessments and risk management plans to protect people from identified risks and helped to keep them safe. They gave information for staff on the identified risk and informed staff on the measures to take to minimise any risks. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely.
People received care from staff that were supported to carry out their roles to meet the assessed needs of people living at the home. Staff received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person and people were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs.
There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when they were needed.
People received care from compassionate and supportive staff and people and staff had positive relationships with each other. Staff understood the needs of the people they supported and used the information they had about people to engage them in meaningful conversations. People were supported to make their own choices and when they needed additional support relatives advocated on behalf of people.
Care plans were written in a person centred manner and focussed on giving people choices and opportunities to receive their care how they preferred. They detailed how people wished to be supported and people were fully involved in making decisions about their care. People participated in a range of activities and received the support they needed to help them do this. People were able to choose where they spent their time and what they did. People were able to raise complaints and they were investigated and resolved promptly.
People and staff were confident in the management of the home and felt listened to. People were able to provide feedback and this was acted on and improvements were made. The service had audits and quality monitoring systems in place which ensured people received good quality care that enhanced their life. Policies and procedures were in place which reflected the care provided at the home.
This unannounced inspection took place on 30 June 2015. This service provides personal care and support for up to 12 people with learning and physical disabilities. Up to eight people live in Welland House and up to four people live in The Coach House which is situated next door.
The service did not have a registered manager in post. 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’s relatives and staff were not always confident in the management of the home. The provider had recognised that the management of the service was not adequate and had placed senior staff into the home to manage the home.
Quality monitoring of the service had been carried out, however where areas had been identified for improvement, action had not always been taken. This had had an impact on the staff support, people’s risk assessments and the monitoring of the quality of the service.
Risk assessments were not always updated, however, staff knew the people who used the service very well, and they were familiar with their requirements and had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences. People received personalised care and support. People felt safe and comfortable in the home.
Safe recruitment practices were in place, staff were clear on their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people. Staffing levels had not always taken into consideration people’s increased dependencies and activities. Staff had not always received support to carry out their roles in the form of induction, updated training, supervision or appraisals.
People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Peoples physical health needs were kept under regular review and people were supported by relevant health and social care professionals. People were supported to engage in activities that reflected their interests and supported their physical and mental well-being.
There were positive interactions between people living at the home and staff. People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred. People using the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint.
The expert by experience spoke with three people. They all said staff were friendly and were meeting their needs. He said: 'I am very impressed about how clean the home was'.how friendly the staff were both towards the residents and visitors alike. This is the kind of thing that I like to see, keep up the good work and well done'. He found people were involved with planning their care, there were many activities and they had choices of how they wanted to live.
We spoke with four relatives of people living in the home. They told us that the care that staff provided was good. One relative said: 'staff are all pleasant. They all seem to be well trained'.
This was a positive inspection. People said that they were satisfied with the care they received. Relatives we spoke with said that care was good.
There were a small number of suggestions: more trips out, for example, to the seaside, would provide interest for people. Also, to have another swing in the garden, and to have a larger budget for activities and food.
We spoke with four relatives. They were all satisfied with the support their relatives received. One relative told us the staff were 'excellent. She always looks forward to going back to the home after visiting us".
We only spoke with two people as people living in the service had communication difficulties. The people we briefly spoke with said they were satisfied with the care they received. People told us that staff were friendly and caring. They had no complaints about the service.
Their relatives all praised the service: ''Staff are fantastic. They help my son in every way he needs'. '' I cannot speak too highly of this home. All the staff are good. There are lots of activities and I have always been informed about medical appointments and anything I need to know.'