We carried out a review of the data available to us about Wyndham Hall Care Home 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 Wyndham Hall Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Wyndham Hall is a 60 bed nursing home in Bicester, Oxfordshire. People’s rooms are located on two floors, the upper floor specialising in dementia care. At the time of our inspection the service supported 55 people.
People’s experience of using this service:
• People were safe. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report concerns and understood how to keep people safe. We saw that risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. There were systems in place to manage safe administration and storage of medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed.
• People had their needs assessed prior to receiving care to ensure staff were able to meet people’s needs. Staff worked with various local social and health care professionals. Referrals for specialist advice were submitted in a timely manner.
• People continued to be supported by staff that had the right skills and knowledge to fulfil their roles effectively. Staff told us they were well supported by the management team.
• People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and maintain an enjoyable and varied diet.
• People were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained. People were also supported to maintain their independence. The provider had an equality and diversity policy which stated their commitment to equal opportunities and diversity. Staff knew how to support people without breaching their rights. The provider had processes in place to maintain confidentiality.
• 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 and their relatives knew how to complain, and a complaints policy was in place. People’s input was valued, and they were encouraged to feedback on the quality of the service and make suggestions for improvements. People had access to a wide range of individual, meaningful activities.
• The service was well-led. People, relatives and staff were complimentary of the registered manager and the management team. The registered manager promoted a positive, transparent and open culture where staff worked well as a team. The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place which were used to drive improvement. The provider worked well in partnership with other organisations.
The service met the characteristics of Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. At the last inspection in October 2017 we made a recommendation to the provider to make improvements in relation to the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and updating records. These improvements have been completed.
Follow up:
We will monitor all information received about the service to understand any risks that may arise and to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Wyndham Hall is a home providing accommodation for up to 60 people who require nursing or personal care, many of who are living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 37 people were living at the home.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
This inspection was conducted following information we received raising concerns about people’s care and welfare and staffing levels.
Records were not always in place, accurate or up to date. Some information in people’s care plans was conflicting or inaccurate. In some people’s care plans information was not in place.
The service did not always involve people in decisions about their care. People’s decisions were not always respected and acted upon. We have made a recommendation about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.
We were greeted warmly by staff at the service who seemed genuinely pleased to see us. The atmosphere was open and friendly.
People told us they were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified.
People were supported by staff who were knowledgeable about people's needs and provided support with compassion and kindness. People received quality care that met their needs.
Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff responded promptly where people required assistance. The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role.
The service responded to people’s changing needs. People and their families were involved in their care and how their care progressed and developed.
Most staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff supervisions and meetings were scheduled as were annual appraisals. Most staff told us the registered manager was very approachable and supportive and that there was a good level of communication within the service.
People had sufficient to eat and drink. Where people required special diets, for example, pureed or fortified meals, these were provided by kitchen staff who clearly understood the dietary needs of the people they were catering for.
There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and displayed in the home. People told us they knew how to complain. The service sought people’s opinions through annual surveys.
The registered manager conducted regular audits to monitor the quality of service. Learning from these audits was used to make improvements.
Wyndham Hall is a new service registered in August 2015 providing accommodation for up to 60 people who require nursing or personal care, many of who are living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 20 people were living at the home.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
We were greeted warmly by staff at the service who seemed genuinely pleased to see us. The registered manager checked our identity before allowing us to proceed with the inspection. The atmosphere was open and friendly.
Relatives told us people were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified.
People were supported by staff who were knowledgeable about people’s needs and provided support with compassion and kindness. People received high quality care that was personalised and met their needs.
Where risks to people had been identified risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to reduce the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were consistently maintained. The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role.
Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and all staff applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. The registered manager was knowledgeable about the MCA and how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity were protected, this included Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs).
The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning needs were identified and action taken to make improvements which promoted people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.
Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff supervisions and meetings were scheduled as were annual appraisals. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and there was a good level of communication within the service.
People and their relatives told us the service was friendly, responsive and well managed. People knew the registered manager and staff and spoke positively about them. The service sought people’s views and opinions and acted upon them.