Archived: Whittington Care Home

Updated 14 December 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 July 2017 and the first day was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors, a specialist advisor and an expert by experience. It was completed on the second day by two inspectors.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service along with notifications that we had received from the provider. A notification is information about important events that the provider is required to send us by law. We looked at the report from the previous inspection held in February 2015. Also before the inspection visit we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with 18 people using the service, nine relatives, the regional manager and the registered manager, the deputy manager, two senior carers and one carer.

We reviewed staff rotas and management records relating to incidents and accidents, training and staff recruitment information.

Not everyone who used the service could fully communicate with us and so we also completed a Short Observational Framework (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 14 December 2017

Whittington Care Home is a residential care home and provides care to 48 older people with a range of age related conditions including dementia.

At the last inspection, the service was rated as ‘good’.

At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good’.

Whittington Care Home is registered to care for 48 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 47 people living there.

People were kept safe by staff who knew how to mitigate risk and to provide safe care. They also knew how to respond should they suspect abuse. There was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs and wishes in a timely manner.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. Staff had clear information on medicines and were able to explain to people why they needed to take them.

Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and care was delivered in a kindly manner. People’s rights were protected because staff knew and followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. Where appropriate people’s mental capacity was established and the principles of the MCA were followed when people lacked the mental capacity to make specific decisions. Deprivation of Liberty safeguards were used appropriately.

People’s heath was promoted through good nutrition and people had access to health and social care professionals to ensure their on-going mental and physical health.

People were cared for by staff who knew them and cared for them in a manner that promoted their dignity and independence. Staff were kind and compassionate. Staff got people’s consent to care before care was provided.

People’s physical and mental health care needs were assessed and care plans were drawn up and reviewed on a regular basis. This was done to guide staff on how to best care for people. Where possible people or their representatives were involved in the planning of care. People’s social needs were considered and people had the opportunity to partake in activities such as gardening and quizzes. Those people who were not able to partake in these activates spent some time with staff. A hairdresser visited the service regularly.

There was a complaints system in place. People were aware of this and how to use it. The service had received many compliments. Visitors were welcome to freely visit the service.

The service was well led. There was an established workforce and staff turnover was low. The registered manager was available to people, staff and visitors and spent part of the day talking with people and staff. This enabled them to be aware of people’s changing needs and staff’s development. People confirmed they found the registered manager easy to talk with and said they were available should they be needed. No one we spoke with had any concerns or worries about the service.

Staff received regular supervision and were positive about how they were managed.

Systems were in place to review and where necessary improve the service. Accidents and incidents were monitored and where appropriate actions to reduce risks were taken.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.