Archived: Wendorian

The inspection was unannounced.

Wendorian is registered to provide care and support for up to five people with different health needs including a learning disability. There is a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Staff were suitably deployed to meet the needs of each person. Healthcare professionals and people told us they were satisfied with the number of staff working at each shift.

Staff understood the needs of people and care was provided with kindness and compassion. People and healthcare professionals told us they were happy with the care provided.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled and provided care in a safe environment. They all received a thorough induction when they started work and fully understood their roles and responsibilities, as well as the values and philosophy of the home.

The registered manager and senior staff assessed and monitored the quality of care consistently involving people, relatives and professionals. People and staff told us they were asked for feedback and were encouraged to voice their opinions about the quality of care provided.

There was a culture of respect, kindness and loyalty in the service. Interaction between staff and people was friendly and encouraging. People we spoke with told us they had frequent opportunity to express their views with staff and management. Professionals consistently told us the leadership in the home was good and always displayed strong values when they visited people.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. These safeguards protect the rights of people using services by ensuring that if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty, these have been authorised by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. We observed people’s freedoms were not unlawfully restricted and staff were knowledgeable about when a DoLS application should be made.

Records showed referrals to health care professionals were made quickly when people became unwell. Each health care professional told us the staff were responsive to people’s changing health needs.

Care plans were reviewed regularly and people’s support was personalised and tailored to their individual needs.

The provider had effective systems in place to support people with their medicines safely. Records showed medicines that were no longer needed were disposed of correctly.

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

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

Is the service safe?

Care plans and risk assessments provided detailed strategies in order to support people who may exhibit challenging behaviours. The provider conducted regular audits in respect of health and safety. People, relatives and professionals had the opportunity to express any concerns about safety in the home. People we spoke with told us they felt safe.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. The manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one and was aware of recent changes

to the legislation. Care staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were able to demonstrate their understanding of assessing people's capacity to make decisions.

Is the service effective?

Care workers we spoke with had a good understanding of people's needs and told us they felt the care plans and risk assessments in place were effective. We found the provider had an effective system in place to check and reassess the suitability of care workers to work with vulnerable people. We looked at a feedback record from one care manager who commented: "Care plans and risk assessments are always up to date and clear.

Each person that used the service had a personal emergency evacuation plan in place (PEEP). These plans detailed instructions for care workers and people to follow should a fire take place in the home. We spoke with one person who was able to describe the content of their individual PEEP. This demonstrated the provider had effective emergency fire procedures in place.

Is the service caring?

People's life style choices, preferences, interests, and different needs had been written in their plans and care and support had been provided to make sure these were upheld. Each person we spoke with told us they felt the support workers cared for them properly. One person said: "They look after us well here". Another person said: "The care plans help us".

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they received care.This included involving them in regular care reviews and keeping them or their relatives informed of changes, if appropriate. We saw that people's health needs were monitored and if necessary the support of health care professionals was obtained. This helped to ensure that the delivery of care was responsive to people's needs and based on up to date information and guidance. The records showed that any concerns were followed up and relevant action was taken.

Is the service well led?

There were clear lines of accountability within the service. We saw evidence that regular audits of the quality and safety of the service were carried out. For example, there were audits of the care plans and care workers training records.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Records showed that staff had undertaken safeguarding of vulnerable adults training.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. The registered manager told us that the staffing levels were determined by the needs of the people that lived in the home.

People's personal records including medical records were accurate and fit for purpose. All records we looked at provided up to date information and guidance on how best to meet people's care needs.

During our visit we inspected the storage and records of medicines held in the home. We saw that all medicines were stored in a locked cabinet. This meant that medicines were kept safely.

The registered manager told us that all staff attended safeguarding awareness training and this was followed by regular refresher courses. Staff training records and the providers training programme reflected this.

Suitable and appropriate checks were undertaken for new members of staff which included criminal records bureau (CRB) checks, employment references and employment history. Staff personnel files also contained copies of peoples qualifications and training certificates. The Induction process for new staff was well laid out with clear objectives and followed the Skills for Care common induction standards.

People who used the service were asked for their views about their care and treatment monthly. We looked at January 2013 questionnaires which were in an easy read format and found that all the people who used the service had completed them. Staff and representatives were asked for their views quarterly and the last survey showed that people were positive about the service.