Background to this inspection
Updated
9 March 2022
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.
As part of the Care Quality Commission's (CQC) response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.
This inspection took place on 10 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service two days’ notice of the inspection.
Updated
9 March 2022
Willerfoss House is a care home that is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 26 older people, including those living with dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of the inspection there were 22 people living within the service.
This inspection took place on 4 October 2018. The inspection was unannounced.
At our last inspection we rated the service 'good'. At this inspection, the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
People were supported by staff who received training on how to safeguard people from abuse. Information was available for staff to raise concerns if needed.
People were kept safe by staff who were trained to monitor and risk assess the safety of equipment and utilities. The environment was clean, tidy and welcoming.
Staff received regular supervision and training. The service ensured safe staffing levels with consistent staff that worked both day and night shifts.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff provided person centred care to people who lived at the service. Staff had knowledge of peoples likes, dislikes and beliefs. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.
People who used the service told us staff were caring. We observed meaningful interactions between staff and people throughout the inspection; feedback from people and their relatives was positive.
Care plans were person-centred and contained information about people's support needs. Some care plans lacked detail of particular health conditions but there was no impact as staff had a good knowledge of people and their needs.
A variety of activities were available every day and people who lived at the service were involved in the planning of these activities.
A new registered manager was in post, supported by an operational director. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. These were not always completed consistently and the new registered manager was enthusiastic to implement a more robust process.
Further information is in the detailed finding below.