Archived: Wentworth House

If you wish to see the detailed evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

Is the service safe?

Relatives of people who used the service were complementary about people's safety being maintained by the provider. One relative told us 'X feels safe with the carers. I have no concerns about the staff when I go out to work.' People told us they felt safe. One person told us 'I feel safe when the carers come in.' Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.

People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected and provided examples of staff ensuring their privacy whilst delivering their personal care. We saw evidence of people's preferences for always having their care delivered by female staff respected by the provider.

People were protected from the risk of inappropriate or unsafe care. This was because the provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others in relation to incidents. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

We found not all of the required pre-employment checks had been completed for seven staff members. Checks had not been completed in relation to the provision of satisfactory evidence of staff conduct in previous employment, where this was concerned with the provision of services relating to health or social care, and full employment histories. The provider was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for gaps in employment histories. This meant the provider did not have an effective recruitment process in place. There was a risk that people who used the service would be cared for by staff who were not suitable for the role. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to recruiting new staff.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with five people and four relatives of people who used the service. They were complimentary about the care received. One person we spoke with said 'They (the staff) take care of me and do it very well.' It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.

People's care needs were assessed with them and their relative when appropriate. We saw evidence of their involvement in the writing of their plans of care. One relative told us 'I was fully involved in the completion of the care plan.' Relatives we spoke with confirmed the care plans were up to date and reflected their family member's needs.

All 30 staff had received training to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Examples of training included infection control, the safeguarding of vulnerable adults (SOVA), safe moving and handling, dementia awareness and fire safety. One person who used the service said 'The staff are exceptionally good. They know what they are doing.' A relative told us 'The staff are very skilled in the care they provide.' People's health and care needs were assessed with them and their relative when appropriate. Care to meet these needs was recorded in care plans. Relatives we spoke with told us the care plans reflected their family member's current needs. We noted people and their relatives' involvement in annual reviews of their care.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and supportive staff. One person told us 'The staff have a nice way about them. They take the time to explain things to me. They are never abrupt.' Another person said 'They (staff) are like a friend to me.' All interactions we observed between the staff and people were open, respectful and courteous. We saw that care workers gave encouragement when supporting people. People were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed. Our observations confirmed this. One person who used the service described one care worker as having 'the caring skills to make a good nurse.'

There were systems in place to ensure people who used the service and their relatives could provide feedback to the provider about the quality of the service received. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they used the service. Records confirmed people's preferences and diverse needs had been recorded. Care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes, for example, care was delivered at their preferred time. People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to attend these. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. One person said that they had made a complaint and were satisfied with the outcome.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had processes in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Processes included the completion of spot checks by managers to monitor the quality and safety of services provided to people in their own homes. Other processes consisted of annual reviews of care and a compliments and complaints process. One relative told us 'I am always asked for feedback whenever X has a new carer.' Records seen by us showed people were complementary about the service and any identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. Relatives we spoke with confirmed they had been listened to and provided examples of improvements made to the service following their feedback. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times. One relative told us 'I am very satisfied with the service.