Archived: Wymeswold Court

Updated 15 February 2016

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 9, 10 and 14 of December 2015 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of four inspectors, including a pharmacist inspector 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. Our expert by experience had expertise in understanding services for people with dementia.

Before the inspection the provider completed 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 reviewed the information within in the PIR along with information we held about the service. This included notifications. Notifications tell us about important events which the service is required to tell us by law. We also contacted the commissioners of the service to obtain their views about the care provided. The commissioners had funding responsibility for some of the people using the service.

At the time of our inspection there were 20 people using the service. We were able to speak with eight people living at Wymeswold Court, four relatives, eleven members of the staff team, the acting manager and the area operations director.

We observed care and support being provided in the communal areas of the service. This was so that we could understand people’s experiences. By observing the care received, we could determine whether or not they were comfortable with the support they were provided with. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. This included five people’s plans of care and associated documents including risk assessments. We also looked at four staff files including their recruitment and training records and the quality assurance audits that the management team completed.

Updated 15 February 2016

This inspection took place on the 9, 10 and 14 December 2015 and was unannounced.

At our last inspection carried out on 5, 6 and 9 February 2015 the provider was not meeting the requirements of the law in relation to the care and welfare of people who use services, the management of medicines and assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. Following that inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make.

During this inspection we looked to see if these improvements had been made. We found that whilst some improvements had been made, some issues of concern remained.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 during this inspection. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Wymeswold Court provides accommodation for up to 40 people who require personal care. There were 20 people using the service at the time of our inspection including people living with dementia.

The person managing the service was an acting manager. They were in the process of applying to be the registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe living at Wymeswold Court and their relatives agreed with them.

Although the staff team knew their responsibilities for keeping people safe from harm, safeguarding incidents had not always been passed to the acting manager for their attention or action.

People had not always received their medicines as prescribed by their doctor.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service and plans of care were developed from this.

People had been involved in making day to day decisions about their care and support. However, where people lacked capacity to make decisions, there was little evidence to demonstrate that decisions had been made for them in their best interest or in consultation with others.

People felt there were currently enough members of staff on duty to meet their care and support needs. There were 20 people using the service at the time of our visit.

The majority of risks associated with people’s care and support had been assessed and actions had been taken to minimise such risks.

Whilst there were times when we observed people being treated in a kind and caring manner, there were other times when they were not.

Checks had been carried out when new members of staff had been employed. This was to check that they were suitable to work at the service. The staff team had received training relevant to their role within the service and ongoing support had been provided.

Staff meetings and meetings for the people using the service and their relatives were being held. This provided people with the opportunity to be involved in how the service was run.

The staff team felt supported by the acting manager and felt able to speak with them if they had a concern of any kind.

People’s nutritional and dietary requirements were assessed and a balanced diet was provided, with a choice of meal at each mealtime. Monitoring charts used to monitor people’s food and fluid intake were not always completed consistently. Whilst the majority of people had a good experience at meal times, We found that one person did not.

There were systems in place to monitor the service being provided, though these had not always been effective in identifying shortfalls, particularly within people’s care records.