Archived: Whitecliffe House

Updated 5 April 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 on 12 February 2016; it was carried out by one inspector and was unannounced.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. They did not return a PIR and we took this into account when we made the judgements in this report. At the inspection we asked the provider to tell us anything they thought they did well and any improvements they planned to make.

We spoke with six people, two people’s relatives and a visitor. We also spoke with twelve staff which included the registered manager the operational manager, head of care and housekeeping staff. As well as the cook, a registered nurse, a gardener, two care workers and an activity coordinator. We looked at four care records and four staff files. We also spoke with four healthcare professionals who worked with people in the home and contacted a representative from the local authority. We saw four weeks of the staffing rota, the staff training records and other information about the management of the service.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI).This is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 5 April 2016

This inspection took place on 12 February 2016. It was carried out by one inspector.

Whitecliffe House provides residential care for up to 31 older people. There were 22 people living in the home at the time of our visit, some of whom were living with dementia.

There was a registered manager who was promoted to the post four years ago. 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’s risks were assessed. Staff were able to describe how they supported people to minimise their risks. However peoples care plans did not always reflect changes in their risk assessment. There were not sufficient quality checks in place to identify if peoples care plans were updated as required. This meant the records were not always up to date.

People had access to healthcare when they needed it. Most healthcare professionals reported that staff communicated with them and followed recommendations that they made. Although one healthcare reported that staff did not always engage with them during their visits to the home. Other feedback from healthcare professionals was positive. One told us that they had requested staff to follow specific guidance in relation to one person’s care. They told us that staff had done a very good job.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and people told us the staff were kind to them. People, relatives and staff described the home as being “like a family.” We saw staff being caring and respectful to people. People and their families told us they felt involved in decisions about their care. People had their privacy and dignity respected.

There was a varied programme of activities which included trips out, social events, crafts and quizzes as well as exercise. People who remained in their rooms were provided with one to one time and given a choice of activity, such as puzzles, reading or talking.

People told us they felt safe living in the home. One relative told us they had “total confidence” in the staff. People told us the food was excellent and they were provided with a choice. Relatives were able to have a meal with their loved one.

Peoples had personalised care plans which were informative and indicated peoples likes, dislikes and preferences. People were provided with choices about all aspects of care and support they received. Staff were able to talk with us about people and demonstrated to us they knew people as individuals.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (2005). The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service had made DoLs applications for a number of people living in the home. Staff understood these Safeguards.

There was a clear management structure. The registered manager was supported by a head of care and staff told us they were supportive and approachable.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. There were regular checks to ensure that the Medicine Administration Records (MAR) were signed to indicate people had received their prescribed medicine.

There was a breach of regulations ,people's records were not updated when their needs changed. There were insufficient quality checks in place to ensure that changes were made. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.