Whitefield House

Updated 15 June 2018

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 18 and 20 April 2018 and was unannounced on the first day. It was undertaken by two adult social care inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, such as notifications of incidents. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. The provider had also completed the Provider Information Return (PIR) as required and returned this to CQC. The PIR provides key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements the provider plan to make. We used this information to help us plan the inspection. We also asked the local authority and Healthwatch Bury for their views on the service. They raised no concerns.

During our inspection we spoke with 14 people who used the service, four visitors, the lead senior, two cooks, three support workers, the human resources administrator, a student volunteer and a visiting health care professional. We also spoke with the providers; one of whom is also the registered manager.

We spent time looking around the home at the standard of accommodation. This included the communal lounge and dining areas, bathroom facilities, the kitchen, laundry and a number of people's bedrooms. We carried out observations in communal areas of the service. We looked at three care records, a range of documents relating to how the service was managed including medication records, three staff personnel files, staff training records, duty rotas, policies and procedures and quality assurance audits.

Updated 15 June 2018

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 18 and 20 April 2018.

Whitefield house is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

Whitefield House is a large detached house which provides accommodation for up to 37 older people in single en suite rooms, some of which opened up onto the secure garden area. At the time of this inspection there were 37 people living in the home.

We last carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service on 5 October 2016. At that inspection we found the service was not in breach of any regulations but improvements needed to be made in the way some medicines were managed and improvements needed to be made to the quality assurance processes in place in the home to show the action taken to address audit findings.

During this inspection we found the required improvements had been made.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

There was a robust system of quality assurance in place. Weekly and monthly checks and audits were carried out by the registered manager and other managers of the service. These were used to assess, monitor and review the service. Managers also spent time observing the care provided and completed unannounced visits to the home at weekends and night times.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in protecting people from abuse and were able to demonstrate their understanding of the procedure to follow so that people were kept safe.

Individual and environmental risk assessments were person centred and gave staff guidance on how to minimise and manage identified risks. The service had policies to guide staff on health and safety and infection control. Appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out and equipment was maintained and serviced appropriately.

Safe systems of recruitment were in place. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and staff received the training, support and supervisions they needed to carry out their roles effectively. People who used the service told us, “Staff are very well trained; you know that by the way they treat you.”

People had their nutritional needs met and were very positive about the food provided.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Care records were detailed and person centred. They were written in respectful ways, described people in positively and included information on how to promote peoples independence, including things the person liked to do for themselves. They contained information based on people’s needs and wishes and were sufficiently detailed to guide staff in how to provide the support people required.

The providers were committed to providing people with high quality of accommodation. Whitefield House was undergoing a programme of refurbishment and was being decorated and furnished to a very high standard.

We found the atmosphere in the home was friendly, homely and easy-going. Staff showed empathy for and kindness towards people who used the service. Interactions were relaxed and there was lots of humour and laughter. People who used the service and staff appeared to genuinely enjoy each other’s company.

People enjoyed the activities on offer at the home and in the wider community. The registered manager and staff we spoke with placed great importance on preventing people from becoming socially isolated and also in promoting people’s well-being.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

Everyone we spoke with thought the service was well managed and spoke very highly of the registered manager. One staff member said “She’s the best person I have ever worked for.”

During our inspection we spent time with the providers, one of whom was also the registered manager. We found the providers to be passionately committed to providing a high standard of care, support and accommodation. The registered manager told us, “We do everything possible to enable a good living experience for everybody, with the decorations and settings; we take it personally, more like a personal representation of who and what we are.” We found senior staff and all care staff shared the same commitment.

The registered manager placed great importance on involving people and used a variety of different ways of gathering people’s views on the service. People felt they were listened to and were involved in developing the service. There was a system for recording and dealing with any complaints.

The service had notified CQC of any accidents, serious incidents, and safeguarding allegations as they are required to do. The provider had displayed the CQC rating and report from the last inspection on their website and in the home.