Whitehaven Residential Care Home

Updated 20 January 2022

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 7 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service two hours notice of the inspection.

Updated 20 January 2022

About the service

Whitehaven Residential Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 10 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 14 people. The home is an adapted building and the providers live on site.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Although people were happy with the service they received, further improvements are required to enhance the service they receive and ensure regulatory requirements are being met.

Whilst no harm had occurred, people did not always receive their medications as prescribed and the service did not follow good practice guidance in relation to medicines management. The medicines audit the provider had in place had failed to identify and rectify these issues.

The home was small with a consistent staff team meaning people received a person-centred service in most areas of their lives. However, opportunities for social engagement and to follow interests were limited and the service relied on people’s friends and relatives for this rather than provide staff to accommodate this themselves. People enjoyed the food, ate well and were healthy. However, food and drink options were not presented to people at the time of consumption and we have made a recommendation about the mealtime experience.

People were well cared for and happy living in the home and this was evident. The providers were on shift most days and coordinated the this well. This meant, however, that should they be absent from the home, staff would not have the knowledge to deliver the care required. Staff did not have development opportunities nor were they given the chance to take on more responsibilities to aid the flexibility of the service.

Due to the providers being on shift most days, they had a good oversight of the service which enhanced the service people received. However, few formal quality monitoring audits were in place and there was a lack of formal opportunities for people to provide feedback on the service. Although the standard was being met, the registered manager was not aware of the Accessible Information Standard which ensures people receive information in a way they understand.

Processes in place helped to mitigate risks associated with avoidable harm, infectious diseases, the premises and abuse. Risks had been identified and managed and staff had received mandatory training including in the safeguarding of adults. There were enough staff to meet people’s day to day needs in a person-centred way and staff had received some pre-employment checks although their full employment histories had not been explored as required by law.

People’s needs had been assessed and care plans produced that gave staff person-centred information to help support people; these had been regularly reviewed. People had access to healthcare professionals which assisted their wellbeing. The home had a welcoming atmosphere and the layout straightforward which was appropriate to those people that lived there. There were, however, areas of the home that were not used to aid social engagement amongst people.

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.

People told us staff were kind and compassionate and that they were respected. We saw that staff upheld people’s dignity and independence and that they had formed trusting relationships. The registered manager was accessible and supportive and there was a friendly atmosphere in the home. Concerns were listened to and acted upon. People told us they would recommend the service.

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 (report published in November 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified a breach in relation to medicines management at this inspection. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.