Background to this inspection
Updated
9 February 2019
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 was a scheduled, comprehensive inspection, and it was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and one expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. The inspection team was supported by a registered sign language interpreter during the inspection. This was because people living at the service and some staff communicated using different types of sign language.
Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what it does well and improvements they plan to make.
We reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales.
We looked at the care records of all the people using the service. We also reviewed the personnel files of three members of staff, as well as training records, rotas, audits and other records relating to the management of the service. We looked at a range of policies and procedures including, safeguarding, whistleblowing, complaints, mental capacity, recruitment and medicines. We reviewed all of this information to help us to make a judgement about the service.
During the inspection we spoke with two of the three people who used the service. We talked with five staff, including the registered manager and deputy manager. A registered interpreter supported us in talking with people and some staff. After the inspection we contacted four relatives of people who used the service. We received written feedback from three health and social care professionals who worked with the service. You can see what they told us in the main body of the report.
Updated
9 February 2019
Watery Lane Cottage is a care home providing accommodation and personal care to a maximum of three Deafblind people with additional complex care needs. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at Watery Lane Cottage.
The service was all on one level and was well suited to the needs of the people who lived there. Accommodation included three ensuite bedrooms, a staff sleep-in room, office and open plan kitchen, living and dining area. The wide corridors and open plan living area enabled people to move around independently where possible.
At our last inspection in August 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. 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.
Why the service is rated Good:
Risks to people were assessed, recorded and actions were taken to minimise or manage risks. People's medicines were administered as prescribed and managed safely by suitably trained staff. The provider planned to resume regular medicines audits.
Policies, procedures and checks were in place to manage health and safety. This included the reporting of incidents and accidents, as well as regular equipment checks and maintenance. Systems were in place to ensure that the quality of the service was monitored, and that improvements were made where necessary.
Effective recruitment procedures were followed to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in this service. Sufficient staff were employed, and they received training in a range of subjects to make sure people received safe and effective care. Staff were warm and caring, and there were positive interactions between staff and people using the service.
People’s wishes and preferences were considered, and the design and decoration of the service promoted people's independence and reflected their needs and interests.
People’s needs were assessed and regularly reviewed, and people received personalised, effective care. People had access to a wide range of personalised activities.
Staff liaised with other professionals as needed. For example, regarding finances, advocacy or when there were concerns about a person’s health. Routine health checks and monitoring were arranged as required.
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.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.