Waterfield Supported Homes Limited - 10 Dowanhill Road

10 Dowanhill Road is a care home for up to seven people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the home. The home was an adapted residential property with accommodation across three floors. There was a communal dining room, lounge, kitchen and garden.

We found the following examples of good practice:

The provider had effective measures in place to help manage the COVID -19 outbreak. There were safe arrangements in place for professionals visiting the service. This included a confirmed negative lateral flow test result, proof of vaccination against COVID-19, the requirement to show a COVID-19 pass, hand sanitisation and new personal protective equipment (PPE) was provided.

The home was clean. Domestic staff followed cleaning schedules which were checked by senior staff to ensure they were following infection control policies. Staff were required to regularly clean high touch surface areas.

Staff had training in infection control and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

People were supported to see their family and friends. If this was not possible staff were using technology to keep family members updated.

10 Dowanhill Road is a care home for up to seven people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, there were seven people using the service. The home is an adapted residential property with accommodation over three floors. There was a communal lounge, dining area, kitchen and garden.

People’s experience of using this service

People told us they liked living here and that they felt safe. They told us they were treated with kindness and respect.

People’s independence and dignity was promoted. Their risk assessments and support plans were written in a positive, person-centred way.

People were supported by well-trained staff who knew them well and understood their needs. We saw staff interact with people in a caring way.

People were supported to have relationships with their friends and families and took part in community activities.

People's medicines were safely managed and stored by staff who understood their responsibilities well.

The home was clean and free of malodour. Good infection control practices were followed.

Fire safety checks and drills were regularly completed. There were regular, documented safety checks and external assessments of safety and equipment.

The registered manager regularly audited and reviewed the home's records, policies and procedures.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and felt supported by management. They had regular supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published 2 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

People were safe and happy living at the service. Staff knew how to identify abuse and understood their responsibility to report any concerns to keep people safe. Staff had received training on safeguarding adults and were aware of the policies and procedures to report poor practice and suspected abuse. The systems in place remained effective in protecting people against abuse and harm. Risks to people were assessed and managed appropriately.

People received their medicines safely from staff who were trained and assessed as competent to do so. Medicines were managed appropriately and administered in line with the provider’s procedures.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely and to meet their needs. New staff underwent appropriate checks to ensure they were suitable to provide people’s care.

People’s care was delivered in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff sought people’s consent to care and treatment and respected their decisions. People were involved in planning their care and were supported to make decisions about how they wanted to live their lives.

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.

People were supported by trained staff with the right skills and knowledge to perform in their role. Staff ensured people received a healthy balanced diet and that food choices met their preferences. People accessed healthcare services when needed and were supported to maintain their well-being.

Staff provided people’s care with kindness and compassion. People had developed positive relationships with staff. People’s records and information were stored securely and staff respected their confidentiality.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident their concerns would be addressed. The provider had an up to date complaints procedure which set a timeframe and process for resolving any concerns raised. Feedback from people and their relatives was sought regularly and used to develop the service.

A registered manager was in post. People and staff found the registered manager approachable and supportive. The registered manager was actively involved in the day-to-day running of the service and easily available to staff for guidance and support.

An open and transparent culture at the service encouraged staff to learn from mistakes and to respond positively to any concerns raised about their practice. The quality of the service was subject to regular checks and audits and action was taken to address any shortfalls identified.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

At our last inspection in June 2013 we found that people did not always experience care and support that met their needs, as care was not always being delivered in line with individual care plans. At this visit we found that care records, including care plans and risk assessments were in place and were regularly reviewed.

At our last inspection we found that people who used the service were not protected from the risk of financial abuse, as not all financial records relating to those people were accurate or up to date. At this visit we examined the financial records for one of the people using the service and found they were up to date.

At our last inspection we also found that the provider did not have effective recruitment processes in place. At this visit we reviewed the records for a new member of staff and found that all of the required documentation was available, and all of the required checks had been undertaken.

At our last inspection, we had found that the quality assurance systems in place in the home were not robust enough. On this visit we found that complaint recording had improved, as had the accuracy of care records. People using the service had also been asked to comment on the quality of the service they received.

People were supported to maintain their independence and access the community. They were encouraged to undertake activities of daily living for themselves, with staff available for support if required.

We found that each person using the service had a care plan tailored to their support needs, however staff were not always following these plans.

Staff demonstrated knowledge in recognising potential signs of abuse. Some of the people had their finances administered by staff. We found that the records relating to their finances were not up to date.

The recruitment and selection processes for new staff were not robust enough as not all required checks had been undertaken before staff started work.

There were monitoring checks undertaken with regard to health and safety, but we found that the monitoring of the quality of the care being provided was not as thorough as it needed to be. Staff periodically obtained the views of people using the service but the outcomes of these surveys were not available for us to see.

At this inspection on 9 January 2013, we found that whilst there had not been any notifiable incidents since our August visit, the provider had retrospectively sent us notifications of earlier incidents. This meant that the provider was now aware of its statutory responsibilities and this protected the people using the service against the risks of unsafe care and treatment.

As this was a follow up to check on the non-compliance identified at our last inspection we did not speak with people using the service on this occasion.