Background to this inspection
Updated
2 November 2018
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 site visit took place on 22 September and was announced. The inspection was carried out by a single inspector. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.
Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the home had sent us. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive. We contacted the local authority quality assurance team and safeguarding team to obtain their views about the service.
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.
People had complex communication needs and were unable to provide us with feedback. We made general observations of interactions between care staff and people.
Two people were away visiting their parents. We received feedback from two relatives and two health and social care professionals via the telephone.
We spoke with the registered manager. We met with three care staff. We reviewed two people’s care files, three medicine administration records (MAR), policies, risk assessments, health and safety records, incident reporting, consent to care and treatment and quality audits. We looked at three staff files, the recruitment process, complaints, and training and supervision records.
We walked around the building and observed care practice.
Updated
2 November 2018
The inspection took place on 22 September 2018 and was announced.
Walc House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. It is registered for up to four people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were four people living in the home.
The home is a three storey detached property which has an open plan kitchen dining area, a bedroom, sensory room and communal lounge on the ground floor. On the first floor there are two further spacious en-suite bedrooms and a communal bathroom, laundry and staff office. The second floor comprises another en-suite bedroom. There is an enclosed garden to the rear of the property.
The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpinned the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values included choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service could live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
The service had 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.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found 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 protected from avoidable harm as staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the actions needed if abuse was suspected. There were enough staff to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. When people were at risk of seizures or behaviours which may challenge the service, staff understood the actions needed to minimise avoidable harm. The service was responsive when things went wrong and reviewed practices in a timely manner. Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained staff.
Where possible people had been involved in assessments of their care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required. Their care was provided by staff who had received an induction and on-going training that enabled them to carry out their role effectively. People’s eating and drinking preferences were understood and their dietary needs were met. Opportunities to work in partnership with other organisations took place to ensure positive outcomes for people using the service. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Families and professionals described the staff as caring, kind and friendly and the atmosphere of the home as relaxed and engaging. People were supported and respected to express their views about their care using their preferred method of communication and were actively supported to have control of their day to day lives. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected.
People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about how they were able to communicate their needs, their life histories and the people important to them. Equality, Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR) were promoted and understood by staff. A complaints process was in place, people and families felt listened to and actions were taken if they raised concerns. The registered manager was starting to explore opportunities to identify and understand people’s end of life wishes and preferences.
The service had an open and positive culture. Leadership was visible and promoted good teamwork. Staff spoke highly about the management and had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Audits and quality assurance processes were effective in driving service improvements. The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.