Archived: Whitecliffe House

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.

During our visit we observed people being treated with consideration and respect. People we spoke with told us that staff were kind, and provided the care and support they needed. One visiting relative told us that "staff are approachable and supportive, they keep me informed of any changes. You could not ask for a better group of people".

People had detailed, holistic, care plans which reflected their needs and wishes. We saw that plans and risk assessments had been reviewed regularly, and up-dated in response to changes.

We found the home to be clean and odour free. The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to protect people from the risks of infection. A relative and two visiting professionals told us that they were happy with the standard of the cleanliness within the home.

Procedures were in place for the recruitment of staff. We looked at four staff files and found that appropriate checks had been completed.

We found that the provider had processes in place to respond to incidents and concerns. We saw that investigations were held, action was taken, and outside agencies notified, if appropriate.

Care plans were easy to read and ensured the person and their family were at the centre of all decisions. A relative told us 'the care and attention my relative receives here is second to none". Care records were regularly reviewed to remain up to date.

People that we spoke with were very positive about the staff and comments included 'like one big family' and 'couldn't be better".

Records showed that the staff team had received safeguarding training and were aware of how and when to report any concerns. People using the service told us, "I do feel very safe here".

There were processes in place to monitor the quality of service being provided and we saw that people's opinions were obtained through surveys.