Archived: Wakeling Court

Updated 19 March 2016

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 took place over two days on the 18 and 23 February 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of three inspectors and a specialist advisor with a background in mental health services and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Before the inspection we looked at the evidence we already held about this service. This included details of its registration, previous inspection reports and notifications the provider had sent us. We contacted the local authority with responsibility for commissioning care from the service to seek their views.

During the inspection we spoke with five people that used the service. We spoke with six staff. This included the quality assurance manager, the regional business manager, the acting manager of the service and three support workers. We reviewed six sets of care records including support plans and risk assessments for people. We looked at six sets of staff recruitment, training and supervision records, medicine records, audits and quality assurance checks and various policies and procedures.

Updated 19 March 2016

At our last inspection of this service in October 2014 we found there was one breach of regulations. This was because the service did not have effective systems in place for the safe administrations of medicines. During this inspection we found the provider had successfully addressed this issue.

The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide accommodation and support with personal care to a maximum of 22 adults with mental health needs. 18 people were using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. They were on a period of leave at the time of our inspection and we were told they were due back in April 2016. An acting manager was in place during the registered managers absence. 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.

Although people had access to health care professionals there was not always an effective system in place for monitoring people’s health care needs were being met. Staff received regular supervision and had access to training. However, there was not an effective system in place to monitor when staff were due training. The service worked within the principles of the Mental capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were able to make choices about their daily lives. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts.

The service had systems in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse. Risk assessments were in place which set out how to support people in a safe manner. There were enough staff working at the service to meet people’s needs and checks were carried out on prospective staff. Medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely.

People told us they were treated well by staff. We observed staff interacting with people in a friendly and respectful manner. Staff understood how to promote people’s dignity, privacy and independence.

People told us the service was meeting their needs. Care plans were in place which were personalised around the needs of individuals. People had access to leisure activities. The service had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

People and staff spoke positively of the management at the service and of the working atmosphere. Various quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place, some of which included seeking the views of people that used the service.