This announced inspection of Weatherstones Court took place on 4 & 5 October 2017.

Weatherstones Court is a supported housing and domiciliary care service. It is a service provided by Autism Together to support and provide personal care to people who have Autism. This support was provided to people who had various level of support needs within their own apartments which were rented from a private landlord. At the time of our inspection 15 people were receiving support in their own apartments.

At the last inspection in May 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. We found during this inspection that the service remained ‘Good.’

People we spoke with and their relatives told us they liked the staff. There were some points raised about staff consistency as many of the staff had left in the last 12 months, mostly due to internal promotion. The service was relying on the use of regular agency staff, however some relatives felt this had a negative impact on their family member. We did see however, continuous consultation with the families and extensive effort to ensure recruitment was on-going. We saw there was a plan in place to address these concerns and the service was actively following a recruitment processes which was updated and reviewed every month.

There was a manager in post who was registered with The Care Quality Commission (CQC). Risks were well assessed and information was updated as and when required. Staff were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt anyone was at risk of harm or abuse this included ‘whistleblowing’ to external organisations. Safeguarding concerns, outcomes and investigations were clearly documented, including any additional learning the provider had taken from the concern to prevent re-occurrence. The registered manager had systems and processes in place to ensure that staff who worked at the service were recruited safely. People were supported to manage their medication safely by staff who were trained to do so.

All newly appointed staff were enrolled onto the organisations induction process which was closely aligned to the principles of the Care Certificate. Supervisions were in date, and there was only a small number that were overdue. Training was classroom based, and was mixed with hands on experience over a two week period.

The service was working in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated principles. Where people could consent to decisions regarding their care and support this had been well documented, and where people lacked capacity, the appropriate best interest processes had been followed. The registered manager had approached the Court of Protection (CoP) to lawfully deprive someone of their liberty.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the staff and the service in general. People told us they liked the people who supported them. Staff were able to give us examples of how they preserved dignity and privacy when providing personal care.

Care plans contained information about people’s likes, dislikes, preferences, routines and personalities. Staff we spoke with demonstrated that they knew the people they supported well, and enjoyed the relationships they had built with people. Some staff had started working at the service via the agency and had then applied to become full time members of staff.

Complaints were well managed and documented in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy. The complaints policy contained contact details for the local authorities and commissioning groups.

Quality assurance systems were effective and measured service provision. Regular audits were taking place for different aspects of service delivery. Regular action plans were drawn up when areas of improvement were identified. Staff meetings took place on a regular basis, and there was a process across the organisation to gather feedback, however we saw there had been a poor response to this.

Further information is in the de

The inspection took place on 29 April 2015 and it was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice as we needed to ensure that people and staff were available to talk to us.

Weatherstones Court is a supported housing and domiciliary care service. It is a service provided by Wirral Autistic Society (WAS) to support and provide personal care to people who have Autism. Autism is a lifelong developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people. It also affects how they make sense of the world around them. It is a spectrum condition, which means that, while all people with autism share certain difficulties, their condition will affect them in different ways. Some people with autism are able to live relatively independent lives but others may have accompanying learning disabilities and need a lifetime of specialist support. The service is provided to people living in their own apartments, rented through a partner landlord. This arrangement is often known as ‘supported living’.

Weatherstones Court had a 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Relatives that we spoke to told us that people using the service were safe, well cared for and supported to become more independent. We saw that there was a positive relationship between people using the service and the staff providing them with supervision and support.

We saw that people were supported with day to day living tasks but were also encouraged to participate in community based activities. Staff had clear care plans and directions as to how to support a person in order to ensure that their needs were met consistently.

We saw that people were encouraged and enabled to make choices and decisions for themselves. Where staff felt that a person using the service lacked the mental capacity to make a decision, a mental capacity assessment was carried out and, where appropriate, a best interest decision was made involving all the key people in that persons care. The registered manager had made applications to the local authority for consideration as to whether restrictions placed on people’s liberty needed to be authorised by the court of protection.

People were supported by staff that were deemed as suitable to work within the care sector and had been given training in order to ensure that they were skilled to work with people who had autism. Staff were supported by a management team who closely monitored their day to day work. Relatives of those using the service also told us that they had confidence in the management team to sort out any concerns or problems that they had.

Wirral Autistic Society had robust quality monitoring processes in place to ensure that the care being delivered was safe and effective. We saw that where issues had been identified, actions were taken in order to make improvements.