Archived: Albert Weedall Centre

Updated 23 August 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 5 July 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to ensure the provider could make arrangements for us to be able to speak with people who use the service, office staff, care staff and to make available some care records for review if we required them. The inspection team consisted of one 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 service.

We looked at information we already had about the provider. Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission about specific events and incidents that occur including serious injuries to people receiving care. Before the inspection, the provider had 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. This information was received when we requested it. We also spoke with service commissioners (who purchase care and support from this service on behalf of some people who use the service) to obtain their views. All this information was used to plan what areas we were going to focus on during the inspection.

During the inspection we met and spoke with the operations manager, the care manager and five care staff. We spoke with seven people who used the service and six relatives of people. Following this inspection we spoke with four members of care staff.

We looked at some records including four people’s care plans and medication administration records to see if people were receiving the care as planned. We sampled three staff files including the recruitment process. We sampled records about training plans, service user feedback and looked at the registered providers quality assurance and audit records to see how the provider monitored the quality of the service.

Updated 23 August 2016

This inspection took place on 5 July 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service [care at home]; we needed to make sure that there would be someone in the office at the time of our visit. The service was last inspected in January 2014 and was meeting all the regulations.

Albert Weedall Centre are registered to provide personal care. They provide domiciliary care to people who live in their own homes within the community. New Outlook Housing Association Limited are the registered providers of care at Albert Weedall Centre. From their offices at this location they also provide support to a further four locations. At this inspection we looked at the care and support they provide to people living in all of these projects. There were 56 people using this service at the time of our inspection.

At the time of this inspection there was no 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. A newly recruited care manager was present during our inspection who advised us of their intentions to apply to become the registered manager.

People told us that they felt safe using this service. Staff described how they would keep people protected from potential harm and knew how to report allegations of poor practice. The service had effective systems in place to minimise risks to people and risk management plans contained detailed guidance for staff to follow. People told us that they received support from reliable staff. People who received support with their medicines were satisfied but improvement was needed to ensure this was done safely in line with safe medicine guidance and best practice.

Staff told us that they had the appropriate knowledge and skills to meet the needs of the people they were supporting. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the key principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People told us that staff asked their consent before providing care and support. People spoke positively about the food that staff prepared for them. Staff worked with other professionals to ensure that people received the health care that they needed.

Positive and complimentary comments were received from people about the staff that supported them. People told us they made decisions about how they wanted their care provided. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s likes and dislikes. Staff maintained people’s privacy and dignity whilst supporting them to remain as independent as possible.

Personalised care plans were in place to enable staff to provide care the way that people preferred. Staff took the time to develop relationships with people they were supporting. People felt that they could speak with staff about their concerns or complaints and that they would be listened to.

People were happy about the quality of the service that was provided to them by the consistent team of staff employed. The provider consulted with people who used the services to find out their views on the care provided. There were good systems for audit and quality assurance to ensure safe and appropriate support to people.