Archived: RNIB Wavertree House

Updated 28 November 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.

The inspection took place on 9 October 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of two 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. This team member had experience supporting people with visual difficulties.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR) to complete the inspection report. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at this and other information we held about the service. This included notifications. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the service must inform us about.

During the inspection we spoke with nine people and seven members of staff. These included the registered manager, deputy manager, a care supervisor, three care workers and the chef. We also spoke to three relatives. During the inspection we spoke to two healthcare professionals about their experiences of the service. Following the inspection, we contacted a further five professionals, who had provided input to people at the service, to seek their views of the support provided by staff.

We reviewed a range of records about people's care and how the service was managed. These included the care records for seven people, medicine management, recruitment records for staff, quality assurance audits, complaints management, training programme, incident reports and records relating to the management of the service. We spent time observing care and support in the communal lounges and observed the lunchtime experience that people had. We observed a staff handover meeting, an activities session and the administration of medicines.

Updated 28 November 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 9 October 2018 and was unannounced.

RNIB Wavertree House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

RNIB Wavertree House provides accommodation for up to 36 older people. On the day of our inspection there were 33 people living at the home. Wavertree House is a residential care home that provides support for older people living with sight problems, some of whom are living with dementia. Accommodation was arranged over three floors with stairs and two lifts connecting each level. Each person had their own flat and there were communal lounges, a communal dining room and gardens. The home is situated in Hove, East Sussex.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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.

In September 2017, the provider re-registered and changed its registered name to Royal National Institute of Blind People. The registered name of the service also changed to RNIB Wavertree House.

People and their relatives told us they had trust in the staff and felt safe and secure living at RNIB Wavertree House. Staff showed a good awareness of safeguarding procedures and knew who to inform if they saw or had an allegation of abuse reported to them. The registered manager was also aware of their responsibility to liaise with the local authority if safeguarding concerns were raised. One person told us, “It’s safe, warm, comfortable, friendly. We are well fed and looked after.”

The design, adaption and layout of the service had been completed to ensure that people who were living with different levels of sight loss could have their needs effectively met, to promote their independence and support them to move around safely.

Staff remained kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people. People's privacy was respected and staff supported people to be as independent as possible. People were involved in making decisions about their care.

Risks relating to people's care were reduced as the provider assessed and managed risks effectively. People’s visual difficulties were taken into account when managing risk and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible. There were effective infection prevention and control measures in place.

People's medicines were managed safely by staff. People were supported by staff who had been assessed as suitable to work with them. Staff had been trained effectively to have the right skills and knowledge to be able to meet people's assessed needs. Staff were supported through observations, supervisions and appraisals to help them understand their role. The provider had ensured that there were enough staff to care for people. One relative told us, “Everybody is so available and efficient.”

People continued to receive care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff received training on the Act to help them understand their responsibilities in relation to it. People’s capacity to make decisions had been carefully assessed. 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’s needs continued to be assessed and person-centred care plans were developed, to identify what care and support was required. People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. People received compassionate support from staff at the end of their lives.

People were encouraged to live healthy lives and received food of their choice. Positive changes to the catering system had been implemented by the provider in response to people’s requests. People received support with their day to day healthcare needs and were encouraged to live healthier lives.

People were informed of how to complain and the provider responded to complaints appropriately. The provider communicated openly with people and staff. Staff worked closely with professionals and outside agencies to ensure joined-up support.

People and staff spoke positively of the leadership of the service. Quality assurance and information governance systems remained in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Staff worked well together and were aware of their roles and responsibilities.

Managers and staff learnt from feedback and took action to improve service delivery following incidents, accidents and audits.