Archived: White Horse Care Trust - 5 Elcot Close

About the service

White Horse Care Trust - 5 Elcot Close is a residential care home providing personal care for five people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to five people. Most people had limited verbal communication.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support

¿ People were supported by staff to pursue their interests. When people expressed a new interest or wish staff would find ways to support them to do this.

¿ Staff supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence and they had control over their own lives.

¿ Staff focused on people’s strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life.

¿ People had a choice about their living environment and were able to personalise their rooms. All people were comfortable moving around communal spaces and could go where they wanted.

¿ Staff supported people to make decisions following best practice in decision-making. Staff were exploring further ways of communicating with people in ways that met their needs.

¿ Staff supported people with their medicines in a way that promoted their independence and achieved the best possible health outcome.

¿ Staff supported people to play an active role in maintaining their own health and wellbeing. This included when people required more specialist interventions.

Right Care

¿ People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people’s privacy and dignity. They understood and responded to their individual needs. Clear guidance was in place to support new and temporary staff working at the home.

¿ Staff promoted equality and diversity in their support for people. They understood people’s cultural needs and provided culturally appropriate care.

¿ Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. The service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.

¿ The service had enough appropriately skilled staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

¿ People could take part in activities and pursue interests that were tailored to them. The service gave people opportunities to try new activities that enhanced and enriched their lives.

Staff and people cooperated to assess risks people might face. Where appropriate, staff encouraged and enabled people to take positive risks.

Right culture

¿ People led inclusive and empowered lives because of the ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of the management and staff.

¿ People received good quality care, support and treatment because trained staff and specialists could meet their needs and wishes.

¿ People were supported by staff who understood best practice in relation to the wide range of strengths, impairments or sensitivities people with a learning disability and/or autistic people may have. This meant people received compassionate and empowering care that was tailored to their needs.

¿ People and those important to them, including advocates, were involved in planning their care.

¿ People’s quality of life was enhanced by the service’s culture of improvement and inclusivity.

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 19 October 2017).

Why we inspected

We undertook this inspection to assess that the service is applying the principles of Right support, right care, right culture.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

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 in August 2015, the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service had remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was employed by the service and was present during 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.

There were systems in place which ensured the quality and safety of the service was monitored. An internal quality assessment tool (IQAT) was used to identify actions required to improve the quality of service people received. Checks and audits of the service were routinely undertaken which included medicine administration, fire safety and infection control.

People were happy and relaxed in the home. During our visit we observed people approaching staff for support and laughing and sharing jokes. Staff spoke with people in a caring and considerate manner responding to requests for support without hesitation.

People were encouraged to take part in activities both outside and in the home. This included going to weekly day services as well as going out for lunch and day trips. People were also supported to be involved in day to day living skills such as cooking, cleaning and shopping if they wished to.

Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and were able to describe what actions they would take if they had any concerns. Staff told us they would not hesitate to report any concerns to senior staff. Where required any concerns raised had been reported to the local authority and CQC.

Assessments had been completed to identify risks to people’s safety and guidance put in place to minimise these risks. People’s care and support needs were fully described in people’s care plans. Care records were regularly reviewed and updated as necessary. Where necessary health professionals had been contacted by staff for support and guidance to ensure people received on-going health care.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Care plans included detailed information on the least restrictive options to support people.

Medicines were stored securely and audits were undertaken weekly to ensure that stocks of medicines and medicines records were accurate. People received their medicines as prescribed. Where people required ‘as necessary’ medicines, the protocols for these were written specifically for the person.

People were supported to eat a varied diet to include their food preferences. Where required people had access to specialist diets and their fluid intake was also monitored to ensure they drank enough. People we spoke with said they liked the food choices.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. During our visit we observed that staff took time to support people with no one being rushed. The service followed safe recruitment practices. People were supported by staff who access to a range of training to ensure they had the correct knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Staff we spoke with said they felt supported and were positive about working within the service.

People looked well supported in relation to their personal care needs. They were involved in the day-to-day running of the home and enjoyed varied leisure activities. People had access to a range of health care services to meet their health care needs. Staff were aware of people's nutritional requirements and there was an emphasis on people receiving healthy, balanced meals of their choice.

The home was spacious and light. All areas were homely, clean and well maintained. Bedrooms were personalised and reflected people's individual interests and preferences. Systems were in place to maintain the safety of the environment.

Staff interacted with people well and positive relationships were evident. Staff felt well supported by each other and the manager. They were positive about the training in place and felt it equipped them to do their job effectively.

People had detailed support plans, which identified their needs and the support they required. Other records demonstrated the range of management systems within the home. Records were organised, up to date and stored appropriately.

We saw that wherever possible people were asked for their consent before care was given. Where people were unable to give consent verbally, staff looked for indications of consent based on their knowledge of their likes and dislikes. We saw that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. All of the records we saw were highly person-centred, putting people at the heart of care.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that medication practice was being carried out safely and that people were encouraged to take responsibility for their own medication as far as possible.

Staff were suitably experienced and skilled to support people living in the home, who had benefited from a stable staff team who have come to know them well. One member of staff said it was 'an honourable job' and all staff we spoke with talked with respect and affection about the people they cared for.

There was an effective complaints procedure that was available in alternative presentations. This meant that it was more understandable for people who cannot understand the written word. A relative had written in the complaints and compliments log, complimenting staff for all their hard work.