Wentworth Hall Residential Home

Wentworth Hall is a residential care home providing personal to up to 23 people. Some people were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people using the service.

People’s experience of the service and what we found:

People were complimentary about the care they received and were extremely happy living at the home.

Risks associated with people’s care were identified and managed to keep people safe. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who were trained and competent to administer medicines. Accidents and incidents were analysed to ensure trends and patterns were identified and lessons learnt.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager had struggled to recruit to the senior team and had no deputy manager. The reduction of senior staff had led to some areas of the service to decline. We identified some concerns on the tour of the home, minor discrepancies with medication management and recruitment. These minor concerns were actioned immediately, and the registered manager continues to actively recruit to the senior team.

People were supported by staff who knew them well. A range of audits took place to monitor the quality of the home and to identify any actions required to resolve any concerns.

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 9 January 2018).

Why we inspected

We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. For those key question not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Wentworth Hall on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow Up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider had a process in place to enable relatives to visit their family members in a safe way by using a summer house with screening in place, gazebo and window visits. Visitors were required to have their temperature taken and asked to complete a form to ensure they are not showing any symptoms of illness. The home also facilitated phone calls, skype, email and video calls, to ensure people were able to communicate with their family and friends.

Social distancing was observed as far as it was practicable to do so. Staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), regularly washed their hands and applied hand sanitiser. Staff had completed training in infection control, COVID-19 and putting on and taking off PPE.

Staff and people using the service took part in the home’s testing programme. Staff were tested three times a week and people using the service were tested monthly. Appropriate actions were taken if anyone tested positive for COVID-19.

The home was clean and there were no malodours. Staff had access to cleaning products and the cleaning of high touch areas such as door handles and handrails, were cleaned regularly. Furniture throughout the service had been discreetly positioned to promote social distancing.

We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines.

At the last inspection in August 2015, the service was rated Good. At our inspection of 28 November 2017, we found the service remained Good. The service met all relevant fundamental standards.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Wentworth Hall’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about how to ensure people were safe. People we spoke with felt safe living at the home. People received their medicines as prescribed, by staff who were appropriately trained to complete this task. Risks associated with people’s care and welfare were identified and plans were in place to help minimise the risk from occurring. The provider had a safe recruitment system in place to ensure suitable staff were employed.

Staff received training which provided them with the necessary skills and knowledge to complete their role and responsibilities. Staff felt supported by the management team. The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us they were happy with the meal provision at the home. We saw meals, drinks and snacks were provided throughout the day. People had access to healthcare professionals when required.

People were happy with the care and support they received and told us the staff were kind and caring. Staff were respectful of people and knew how to maintain people’s privacy and dignity.

People were involved in their care and care records were reflective of people’s current needs. A range of social activities were provided within the home, however some people commented that they would like some trips out. The registered provider had a complaints procedure and people felt comfortable in raising concerns with staff and the registered manager.

The service conducted regular audits to ensure the service was operating to sufficient standards. Any concerns were addressed in a timely way. People had the opportunity to voice their opinions about the service and they felt listened to. There was a good sense of leadership at all levels. The senior team managed the home in an effective way.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw people using the service were treated with respect and dignity by the staff who had a good knowledge of their needs and preferences. Care and support was delivered in a safe way by staff who had received appropriate training.

Records were in place to monitor any specific areas where people were more at risk.

The company had policies and procedures in place to help protect people who used the service from abuse. We found staff had received training in relation to safeguarding vulnerable people from abuse.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed on a regular basis. We saw people who used the service and their relatives had been involved in writing plans of care and these were reviewed and updated regularly.

People received a well-balanced diet and were involved in choosing what they ate. The people we spoke with said they were very happy with the meals provided. Specialist dietary needs had been assessed and catered for.

Staff had access to a varied training programme to ensure they could meet the needs of the people they supported. Staff told us they were well supported by the manager and attended regular staff meetings. However, records did not demonstrate that formal support sessions or an annual appraisal of staffs’ work had taken place consistently.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were supported by helpful, caring and friendly staff. We saw staff interacting with people in a positive way, enabling them to be as independent as possible while offering on-going support.

Care files contained person centred information that reflected people’s needs and preferences. We saw care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Satisfaction surveys and meetings had been used to enable people to share their views on the service provided. This helped the provider to assess if people were receiving the care and support they needed. People’s comments indicated they were happy with how staff supported them, and the home’s facilities.

Is the service responsive?

Care records demonstrated that when there had been changes in people’s needs outside agencies had been involved to make sure they received the correct care and support. For example, one person who was losing weight had been referred to a healthcare professional and nutritional supplements provided.

People who used and visited the service knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. No-one raised any concerns with us when we visited the service. People we spoke with said when any requests were made staff were quick to respond to them.

Is the service well-led?

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in post who had worked at the home for a long time. She told us senior care staff and the owners provided managerial support in her absence.

People who completed surveys in 2014 had written comments such as “The manager is very approachable”, “Extremely satisfied”, and “Wentworth Hall is a pleasure, clean and well run.”

There was a quality assurance system in place to assess if the home was operating correctly. This included surveys and audits. We saw action plans had been put in place to address any shortfalls.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. We saw staff had access to policies and procedure to inform and guide them. Staff training and development needs had been assessed to enable the provider to arrange future training sessions.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. People had detailed care and treatment plans relating to all aspects of their care needs. One person said, "Staff know just how to care for me, they are professional in all that they do."

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. People we spoke with had no concerns with the cleanliness of the service.

The people who lived in the home were kept safe because the provider had taken steps to maintain the building and we saw that regular health and safety checks had been carried out.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff started work. This included being registered with the relevant professional bodies.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because their records had been reviewed and updated regularly.

We also used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. This included observing care, looking at records and talking to staff.

We also spoke with the relatives of two people using the service. They told us they were happy with the care provided. They said they were kept informed about any changes to their relatives care and treatment. Relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt their concerns were acted on swiftly. One relative told us that the home had arranged for their father to use a computer to communicate with them.

People we spoke with told us that staff were kind and always treated them with respect. One person said “I like living here, staff know their jobs and they are very professional.”

We found medication was administered safely to people. People were given appropriate support were required, to ensure they had taken their medication. People were given choices which enabled them to self medicate.

Staff received appropriate support and training to ensure they were able to meet the needs of people living at the home.

Complaints were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.