Background to this inspection
Updated
17 June 2021
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.
Inspection team
The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.
Service and service type
Watts Healthcare Ltd, also known as Sherwood 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.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
The first day of the inspection was unannounced.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.
We contacted health and social care professionals to obtain feedback about their experience of the service. These professionals included local authority commissioners and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. Healthwatch told us they did not have any information about the service. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
Some people were not able to verbally express their experiences of staying at the service. We observed staff interactions with people and observed care and support in communal areas. We spent time speaking with five people. We spoke with six relatives.
We spoke with nine staff including; the administrator, a chef, a housekeeper, care staff, senior care staff, the deputy manager, and the registered manager. We reviewed a range of records. This included four people's personal care records, care plans and eight people's medicines charts, risk assessments, staff rotas, staff schedules, three staff recruitment records, and meeting minutes. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the registered manager to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records.
Updated
17 June 2021
About the service
Watts Healthcare Ltd, also known as Sherwood House, is a residential care home providing personal care to 15 people at the time of the inspection. People were aged 65 and over and younger adults with care needs. Some people had physical disabilities and mental health needs. One person was cared for in bed. One person was in hospital at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 32 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People looked relaxed and happy, there was plenty of laughter, fun and interaction. People told us, “I love it. I want to stay here for the rest of my life” and “We do have some fun here.” Relatives told us, “I saw mum on Tuesday, it made me very happy to see mum looking so well”; “Hand on my heart [it was the] best decision for mum [to live at the service]”; “[It is an] incredible place” and “Ten stars for them.”
We were not assured that the provider had been admitting people safely to the service. People had not always been isolated for the required amount of time on admission. We signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) and followed guidance to make sure this was disposed of safely. Staff had access to PPE whenever they needed it. The service was clean, and all areas of the service were regularly cleaned.
Systems to manage the risk of legionella infection were not robust. Empty room flushing had not been carried out as required. The registered manager made improvement to the processes and systems within the service during the inspection, such as implementing the required water flushing of empty rooms. They also arranged for a contractor to attend the service and carry out a legionella risk assessment and checks.
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had received training to make sure they had the information they needed to keep people safe. Risks to people’s individual health and wellbeing had been assessed and were well managed. People’s medicines were well managed. If people or their relatives wanted to complain they knew how to do so.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service was well-led. The management team carried out the appropriate checks to ensure that the quality of the service was continuously reviewed, improved and evolved to meet people’s changing needs. The registered manager promoted an open culture and was a visible presence in the service, staff felt listened to and valued.
People were treated with dignity and respect. People’s views about how they preferred to receive their care were listened to and respected. People told us staff were kind and caring.
People had access to a range of different activities throughout the week. People told us that they took part in these and that they were enjoyable. Activities were also provided for people who received their care and treatment in bed.
People received good quality care, support and treatment including when they reached the end of their lives. People had been involved in planning and discussions about their wishes and preferences in relation to their end of life care.
When people needed medical attention, this was quickly identified, and appropriate action was taken. For example, if people were losing weight referrals were made to dieticians, or if people fell regularly, they were referred to a fall’s clinic.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
This service was registered with us on 23 August 2019 and this is the first inspection.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.