Archived: Wentworth House

Updated 8 January 2015

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 was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. 

We visited the home on 29 October 2014 and this was an unannounced inspection. The  inspection team consisted   of an  inspector and an 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 care service.

At the time of the inspection there were 24 people who lived at the home. During the day we spoke with the proprietor, the care manager, the deputy manager, 10 people who lived at the home, two relatives and two members of care staff. We also spoke with a health professional who visited the home during our inspection. We  looked around the building and viewed records relating to the running of the home and the care of people who lived there.

We  spoke with people in communal areas and their personal rooms. Throughout the day we observed how staff cared for and supported people living at the home. We observed the lunch time meal being served in the main dining room of the home.

We carried out a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) over the lunch time period in the nursing unit of the home. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people using the service who could not express their views to us.

Prior to our inspection, we liaised with external providers including the safeguarding, infection control and the commissioning teams at Salford local authority.

Updated 8 January 2015

Wentworth House is a care home in the Swinton area of Salford, Greater Manchester. The home is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide personal care for up to 25 people. The home is located in a residential area and accommodation is provided over two floors.

We last visited the home on 25 June 2013 and found the home was meeting the requirements of the regulations, in all the areas we looked at.

Currently, there was no registered manager in place at the home and recruitment for this position was on going.  The previous manager had de-registered with CQC in September 2014. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Although we saw that staff received regular supervision as part of their on going development, we saw no evidence of any appraisals taking within the last 12 months. We raised this with the proprietor who acknowledged this as something that needed to be improved upon.

Staff at the home had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA and DoLS are laws protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. There were no DoLS currently in place at the home, however staff knew the correct procedures to follow to ensure people’s rights were protected. Staff had received training in the MCA and DoLS which was recorded on the training matrix.

On the day of our inspection the staffing team consisted of the care manager, deputy manager, two care assistants, a domestic and the cook who worked in the kitchen. This was to provide care and support to 24 people. One member of staff had telephoned in sick on the day of our inspection and this was covered instantly by another carer.

Staff spoken with told us they felt supported by the care manager and understood the ethos and values of the home. They felt they could raise any issues and they would be dealt with.

There were systems in place to monitor and review accidents, incidents and complaints. The manager told us they monitored staff training using a training matrix, which identified when updates were required for staff.

We saw the home followed safe recruitment practices which meant people were kept safe as suitable staff were employed, and appropriate checks undertaken.

People’s care records showed their needs had been assessed and care records were regularly reviewed. However, it was unclear to us how feedback from people who lived at the home was used to improve the quality of service provided. Surveys had been sent out in June 2014, but were not analysed. We saw no evidence of any residents meetings taking place at the home. The proprietor told us people’s views were sought during ‘one to one’ sessions, however there were no records to confirm these took place.

People we spoke with and their relatives said they felt able to raise any concerns or complaints with staff and were confident they would be acted upon.

Leadership in the home was good. The care manager and deputy manager worked alongside staff overseeing the care given and provided support and guidance where needed.