About the service:

Whitwood House is a residential care home, providing personal care and accommodation for 16 people who may have a learning disability and or complex/physical health needs.

Whitwood House has three separate houses – Gatehouse, Coach House and Hanwell House. Another person lives in their own separate accommodation on the site.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with a learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service met the characteristics of good in all areas.

People and their relatives were positive about the support provided by the Whitwood House. There was a positive culture within the service where people, staff and relatives felt listened to. The manager felt supported by the provider and this flowed through the service.

Quality assurance systems were in place which ensured high standards were maintained. The manager was in the process of becoming the registered manager of Whitwood House. The previous registered manager left the service in December 2018.

People received safe care. There were enough staff to support people. Recruitment checks were completed to ensure staff were suitable to work with people in this environment. People were protected from harm and staff administered their medicines safely.

Staff understood the risks posed to people and had management plans in place. Lessons were learnt when mistakes happened. Staff followed infection control practices to protect people.

People were supported by staff to make their own decisions and choices. Staff were knowledgeable and understood the principles of The Mental Capacity Act.

The care that people received was effective. 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.

Staff received training and support to provide care effectively. People were provided with meals and plentiful drinks to maintain their wellbeing. People were supported by health care professionals to sustain their health.

Rating at last inspection:

Good: report published on October 2016.

Why we inspected:

This was a scheduled inspection based on previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

This inspection took place on 8 August 2016. The inspection was unannounced. Following our site visit we contacted professionals and family members on 11, 12 and 16 August 2016.

Whitwood House provides accommodation for up to 16 people in three separate houses – Gatehouse, Coach House and Mansell House. Another person lives in their own separate accommodation on the site.

Our last inspection of this service took place in December 2013. At that time we found the service to be compliant with the regulations.

The service had in place 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.

We found the service provided a safe environment for people. Appropriate checks were in place to ensure the building and the grounds were maintained.

Staff were trained to give people their medicines and their competency to do this had been assessed. We found people’s medicine administration records were up to date and matched the stock held by the service. There were regular audits in place to ensure people’s medicines had been safely administered.

Staff were aware of how to report safeguarding concerns, or raise any other concerns they had about the service. Staff told us they would raise concerns with the management team.

The home met the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and had made appropriate applications to deprive people of their liberty and keep them safe.

We found staff working in the service had been given an induction to the service, training and supervision so they could actively work in the service. Staff were clear with us and without having the appropriate training and skills to work with individual people they would not be allowed to support them.

People’s needs had been extensively assessed and continued to be assessed to ensure the environment and staff providing the service were up to date and knew how to meet each individual person’s needs.

Without exception people’s care plans were carefully constructed to give staff very specific guidance on how people should be cared for in the home. Changes to people’s plans on review were discussed with people and staff were encouraged to carry out plans consistently to avoid any distress to people who used the service. Staff were informed of any changes through daily communication and staff meetings.

Staff were caring and understood their role in ensuring people lived in a low stimulus environment. We saw staff treated people with kindness and respect. Relatives told us they were happy with the care provided as people talked about, “Going home” when they were due to return to the service.

Communication scripts were given to staff to ensure all staff spoke the same language and give the same messages to people which in turn promoted people's stability and their well-being.

People were able to identify the staff who were supported them as staff wore homemade badges with people’s photographs on them. This meant people were aware who were tasked to provide their care that day and could focus on them.

We found there was clear partnership working between the home and other professionals. The home sought advice and listened to the advice given in order to better meet people’s needs.

The service supported people to access the local community to meet their needs. People used the local bowling centre or local walks as well as do their shopping to meet their personal needs.

The management team acted as the drivers for improvement for the service. They carried out audits to measure the quality of the service and led staff meetings to discuss improvements to people’s care planning.

The atmosphere throughout the home was relaxed and we saw that staff took time to talk with people. Care plans were individualised, written in the first person and enhanced by appropriate pictures and diagrams. Risk assessments were completed for people who used the service.

We looked at medication charts and reviewed records for the receipt, administration and disposal of medicines and conducted a sample audit of medicines to account for them. We found that records were complete and that people had received the medication they had been prescribed.

The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitable and adequately maintained.

The service employed a team of care staff who carried out various roles. The service did not employ a cook nor domestic staff as these duties were seen as part of the therapeutic package to assist and encourage service users to be independent.

Staff members completed induction training when they first started to work in the home that prepared them to work with people with a learning disability. We spoke with three members of staff who told us that they liked working at Whitwood House, felt completely supported by their manager and felt confident in raising concerns should they need to. We were told by staff that they were supported with formal regular supervision and an appraisal system and that staff meetings took place for peer support.