Archived: Willerfoss House

Willerfoss House is a care home that is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 26 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 22 people living within the service.

We found the following examples of good practice.

People were supported to have visitors and safe visiting processes were followed in line with national guidance. Alternative arrangements were available to support people to maintain contact with their family and friends in the event of an outbreak.

Social distancing was promoted through the layout of furniture.

Risks to people and staff in relation to COVID-19 had been assessed and action taken to manage the risks.

Staff took part in regular testing for COVID-19 and were vaccinated.

This inspection took place on 4 October 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

At our last inspection we rated the service 'good'. At this inspection, the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People were supported by staff who received training on how to safeguard people from abuse. Information was available for staff to raise concerns if needed.

People were kept safe by staff who were trained to monitor and risk assess the safety of equipment and utilities. The environment was clean, tidy and welcoming.

Staff received regular supervision and training. The service ensured safe staffing levels with consistent staff that worked both day and night shifts.

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

Staff provided person centred care to people who lived at the service. Staff had knowledge of peoples likes, dislikes and beliefs. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People who used the service told us staff were caring. We observed meaningful interactions between staff and people throughout the inspection; feedback from people and their relatives was positive.

Care plans were person-centred and contained information about people's support needs. Some care plans lacked detail of particular health conditions but there was no impact as staff had a good knowledge of people and their needs.

A variety of activities were available every day and people who lived at the service were involved in the planning of these activities.

A new registered manager was in post, supported by an operational director. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. These were not always completed consistently and the new registered manager was enthusiastic to implement a more robust process.

Further information is in the detailed finding below.

The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to 26 people who require assistance with personal care, some of whom may be living with dementia. The home is situated in Withernsea, a seaside town in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The service is close to local amenities and transport routes. Private accommodation is provided in single rooms, some with en-suite facilities.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager in post who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

During this inspection people told us that they felt safe living at Willerfoss House. People’s needs were assessed and risk assessments put in place to reduce the risk of avoidable harm. People were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because the registered provider had effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities for protecting people from the risk of harm.

Medicines were administered safely by trained staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were robust.

Staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection processes and received a range of training opportunities. Staff told us they were supported so they could deliver effective care; this included staff supervision, appraisals and staff meetings.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and, where necessary, supported to access healthcare services. People were supported to make decisions and their rights were protected in line with relevant legislation and guidance.

People using the service were positive about the caring attitudes of staff. We observed that staff were kind, caring and attentive to people’s needs and people’s privacy and dignity were respected.

Care plans were reviewed regularly so that staff were aware of people’s changing needs and we saw that there were systems in place to assess and record people’s needs so that staff could provide personalised care and support.

We saw that the registered provider had a robust quality assurance system for the service, which included audits, overall assessments, service reports and a business plan. The registered manager monitored the quality of the service, supported the staff team and ensured that people who used the service were able to make suggestions and raise concerns.

We observed that records were well maintained, there was clear organisation and leadership with good communication between the registered provider, registered manager and the staff team.

People told us that staff supported them well and that they could talk to them about any problems they had. We saw positive interactions between people who lived at the home and staff on the day of the inspection, and observed good care practices. People's care plans were reviewed regularly so that staff had current information to follow.

Staff had undertaken training on safeguarding adults from abuse and were able to explain the different types of abuse and the action they would take if they observed poor practice. People who lived at the home told us that they felt safe living there.

We saw that the home was clean and that good hygiene practices were followed by staff. The premises were also well maintained.

Staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection procedures and they received induction training and on-going training to ensure that they had the skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively.

Quality monitoring ensured that people were able to express their views about the service provided and there was evidence that their opinions were listened to. Regular audits were being carried out to ensure that safe working practices were being followed by staff.

A dignity champion had been appointed at the home and people told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity. However, we had some concerns about how people were assisted to eat their meals. We discussed this with the manager and the issues were dealt with whilst we were still at the home.

We saw that care planning documentation recorded a person's life history, lifestyle choices and their likes and dislikes and provided staff with sufficient information to be able to meet a person's individual care needs. The district nurse who we spoke with told us that she had no concerns about care practices at the home.

We saw that medication was stored and administered safely and that staff had received appropriate training to ensure that they had the knowledge to carry out this task in a satisfactory manner. We found that there were sufficient numbers of staff to support the people who lived at the home.

The premises were suitable for the needs of the people who lived at the home and were maintained in a safe condition.

People told us that they were happy living at the home and that their complaints were listened to. We saw evidence of this on the day of the inspection.