Wellington House Nursing Home

Updated 6 June 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 1 May 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors.

Before the inspection we reviewed information available to us about this service. The registered provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed safeguarding alerts; share your experience forms and notifications that had been sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also spoke with the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams to gain their feedback about the service.

During the inspection we spoke with six people who lived at the home and five relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, both the provider directors, the administrator, the cook, the senior carer for quality and training, a registered nurse and three care workers. We looked at two care plans, four staff recruitment files, medication records, audits, meeting notes, surveys, maintenance records and carried out tour of building. We also spoke with two health professionals about their experience of working with the service.

Updated 6 June 2018

Wellington House Nursing Home is a care home which provides personal and nursing care for 30 older people. There are two floors to the home; there are bedrooms and communal rooms on both floors.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. However the safe domain was rated requires improvement because medicines were not always managed in a safe way. At this inspection we found improvements had been made to the way medicines were managed which means the safe domain is now rated good. We found the evidence for all other domains 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.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

The provider had acted upon the feedback in our last inspection report and improved the way medicines were managed at the home. This meant medicines were now managed safely.

Staff had a positive and proactive approach to risk management and staff regularly reviewed and adapted their practices to ensure people were kept safe.

Staff had appropriate skills and training and there were enough available to meet people’s needs.

People received enough to eat and drink and had their weight regularly checked. Staff were proactive in identifying changes, risks and concerns with people’s health and worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure people maintained good health.

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 support this practice.

Staff were kind, caring and had a good knowledge of people which they used to deliver personalised care. People told us they were treated with respect and staff had a high regard for protecting their privacy and dignity

The home was clean, homely and well maintained. There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere throughout the home and visitors were made to feel welcome.

The services’ core values promoted a person centred approach with an emphasis on dignity, respect and supporting people to make decisions about their care, treatment and daily lives. Staff encouraged people to express their views and listened to what people had to say.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and where issues were identified they took action to make improvements. They continuously looked for ways to improve the service and had an improvement action plan in place to support this.

We found all the fundamental standards were being met. Further information is in the detailed findings below.