We carried out a review of the data available to us about 188 Whitley Wood Lane Respite Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about 188 Whitley Wood Lane Respite Care, you can give feedback on this service.
This inspection took place on 7 and 10 November 2017 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours' notice of our inspection as this is a small service and we needed to be sure staff would be available.
At the last inspection in November 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good and had continued to meet all the fundamental standards of quality and safety.
Why the service remained Good:
The staff team were caring and respectful and provided support in the way people preferred. People's rights to confidentiality, dignity and privacy were respected. People were enabled and encouraged to develop and maintain their independence wherever possible.
People received care and support that was personalised to meet their individual needs. People were able to continue their usual daily activities during their stay at the service. The service also provided access to the local community to enhance social activities. This meant people were able to access activities that took into account their individual interests and links with different communities.
Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and protect them from abuse. Personal and environmental risks to the safety of people, staff and visitors had been assessed and actions had been mostly taken to minimise those risks. We found some issues identified on a legionella risk assessment from May 2017 had not been actioned. The registered manager arranged for the outstanding work to be carried out by the end of November 2017.
Recruitment processes were in place to make sure, as far as possible, that people were protected from staff being employed who were not suitable. There were sufficient numbers of staff and medicines were stored and handled correctly.
People benefitted from a staff team that was well trained and supervised. We have made a recommendation that future ongoing staff training be updated in line with the latest best practice guidelines for social care staff.
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. People were supported to eat and drink enough and their health and social care needs were met.
People were relaxed and there was an open and inclusive atmosphere at the service. Staff were happy in their jobs and there was a good team spirit. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of care being delivered and the running of the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings in the full report.
188 Whitley Wood Lane Respite Care is a care home without nursing that provides a respite care service to up to six people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. People stay at the service for short periods, depending on an annual allocation of respite care nights. People and their carers are assessed for eligibility for respite care by Reading Borough Council. Once eligibility has been agreed, the number of nights per year are allocated depending on need. At the time of our inspection the service had 28 people in total who use the service for short term breaks throughout the year. Over the two days of our inspection there were 10 different people staying for a short respite break, six on each day.
The service had a registered manager who had been registered since 6 October 2014. 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 received support that was individualised to their personal preferences and needs. Health professionals told us they thought the service provided personalised care that was responsive to people's needs.
People told us they liked the food at the home and we saw they were given choices of what they wanted to do when not at their day services. People and their relatives said they were happy when they had a short term break and looked forward to returning.
People's wellbeing was protected and all interactions observed between staff and people staying at the service were caring, friendly and respectful. We saw staff respected people's privacy and dignity. Staff listened to them and acted on what they said. People's rights to make their own decisions, where possible, were protected.
People were protected from the risks of abuse and felt safe when staying at the service. Health and social care professionals felt risks to individuals were managed so that people were protected. People were protected from risks associated with their health and care provision and risks associated with the premises.
People could be confident that staff were checked for suitability before being allowed to work with them. They received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and knew how people liked things done.
People benefitted from staying at a service that had an open and friendly culture. People, relatives and health and social care professionals felt staff were happy working at the service. Staff told us they enjoyed their work. They said they were supported by the management and their colleagues in their role. They felt encouraged to make suggestions and told us the management took their suggestions seriously. Relatives told us the service was managed well and that they were asked their opinion on how things were at the service. Health and social care professionals thought the service demonstrated good management and leadership and worked well in partnership with them.
Care was individually planned and specific to the person using the service. People's likes and dislikes were documented and we saw people making choices and staff supporting people in these preferences during our visit.
There were procedures in place to manage the risk of abuse. Staff had received appropriate training and there were robust policies in place. Staff were clear about their responsibilities and were confident in reporting concerns to the manager.
The provider had procedures in place to recruit and select suitably qualified staff.
There were systems in place to obtain the views of the people who used the service and to assess and monitor the quality of the service.
The care was individually planned and specific to the person using the service. A relative told us the staff always discussed any changes to care with them.
Staff received training which the provider considered mandatory and the training was generally up to date. Where training was due the manager told us these courses were booked.
The provider may wish to note at the time of our visit there was no registered manager for the service. We were told the current manager was in the process of registering with the commission.
One person's family told us, 'The unit is our lifeline and we cannot praise it enough.'