Archived: Weaver Court

We found the following examples of good practice.

Systems were in place to make sure visiting professionals and staff provided evidence of their vaccination status before entering the service.

Risks relating to COVID-19 had been assessed and mitigated for individual people, staff and visitors.

An 'isolation suite' had been developed using a lounge with adjacent bathroom and kitchen for people to use as needed.

A robust 'Dwelling risk assessment' was in place covering all aspects of effects of COVID-19 on the service.

Weaver Court is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home can accommodate up to 22 people who have a learning disability and autism spectrum disorders. Accommodation was centred over two separate living accommodations, each with their own entrance. The main accommodation at Weaver Court had nine people living within the home and four people living in the separate ‘Idlecroft’ accommodation. Both accommodations had separate living and dining areas and there was a kitchen for people to make their own meals in Idlecroft. In addition, there was a flat for one person which was separate to the other accommodations.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The care service has been developed 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 learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a 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.

Staff were being recruited safely and there were enough staff to take care of people and to keep the home clean. Staff were receiving appropriate training and they told us the training was good and relevant to their role. Staff were supported by the registered manager and were receiving formal supervision where they could discuss their ongoing development needs, although this needed to be more regular for some staff.

People’s relatives told us staff were helpful, attentive and caring. We saw people were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.

Care plans were up to date and detailed what care and support people required. Risk assessments were in place and showed what action had been taken to mitigate any risks which had been identified. People’s relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe living at the home. Appropriate referrals were being made to the safeguarding team when this had been necessary.

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.

People’s healthcare needs were being met and medicines were being stored and mostly managed safely.

Staff knew about people’s dietary needs and preferences. We saw there was a good choice of meals and the food appeared tasty and nutritious. There were plenty of drinks and snacks available for people in between meals.

Activities were on offer to keep people occupied on a meaningful basis. Relatives told us they were made to feel welcome when they visited.

The home was spacious, clean and tidy although some areas required redecoration. We have made a recommendation about continued liaison with the property landlord about these areas. All the bedrooms were single occupancy.

The complaints procedure was displayed. Records showed complaints received would be dealt with appropriately although none had been received since our last inspection.

Everyone spoke highly of the registered manager and said they were approachable and supportive. The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and where issues were identified they acted to make improvements.

We found all the fundamental standards were being met. Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Weaver Court is situated in the Idle area of Bradford and is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 22 people who have a learning disability and autism spectrum disorders. The service was centred over two floors with communal dining and living areas, and a large enclosed garden at the back of the property. In addition, there was a separate flat for one person which was separate to the main building.

At the time of the inspection, there were 16 people living within the home and one person living in the flat.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe in the home. They did not raise any safety related concerns with us. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to identify and act on allegations of abuse and we saw the registered manager had followed safeguarding procedures to keep people safe.

Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed by the service and risk assessments which were in place were well understood by staff.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

People and their relatives we spoke with told us they were generally satisfied with the service and spoke particularly positively about how kind and caring staff were. Some relatives felt general communication and interaction with management could be improved.

There were sufficient levels of staff to ensure safe care and support, although more consistent staff levels would ensure more activities would be possible within the service. Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff were of suitable character to care for vulnerable people. People and their key staff workers were matched according to who people felt most comfortable with.

Some people using the service were unable to verbally communicate with us. However, we observed care and support and looked at non-verbal communication including body language, hand and facial movements. We saw positive caring interactions between staff and people that use the service.

Staff had a good understanding of the people they were caring for. This included a high level of understanding of people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff displayed motivation and desire to provide a caring and personalised approach to people

People had sufficient choice and variation of food in the home and people were supported to maintain good nutrition.

Medicines management was observed to be safe. People received their medicines as prescribed and clear records were kept.

Staff received a range of training which was generally kept up-to-date, as well as regular supervision and appraisal.

People participated in a range of activities and social activities which met their individual needs. The service owned a minibus which increased the range of opportunities available to people.

There was a system of audit and checks in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and take appropriate action taken to improve where necessary.

Relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and said they were effective in dealing with any concerns or queries.

Staff told us the management team was supportive of them and felt morale was good in the home.

Some records needed more robust and updated documentation.

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff we spoke with understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly.

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People told us they had never needed to make a complaint but if they did they thought complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

Staff had attended several training courses which took into account the needs of the people who used the service. This ensured that people's needs were met.

We also looked infection control within the home and found communal living areas to be clean and tidy and an infection prevention policy in place to support infection control. We found some toileting and bathing areas of the home posed an infection control risk and these were raised with the manager at the time.

We looked at two staff files and could see evidence of interviews, references and id checks had taken place. Staff confirmed to us they were interviewed and trained prior to starting the role. All relevant records looked at were in date and stored in appropriate ways to protect peoples confidential information.

We found that the environment of the home was safe but some of the bathrooms and toilets were dated and showed signs of wear and tear.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.