Weatherstones Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were safely supported. People did not directly comment on whether they felt safe, yet it was clear through observation that people were comfortable and relaxed. They looked at staff as a trusted resource they could refer to, using their preferred communication methods to refer to staff about how they wished to be supported. All relatives told us that they felt their loved ones were safe using the service and had no concerns. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff were knowledgeable about this. The service reported any concerns they had transparently to the local authority as required. Staff were safely recruited and staffing levels enabled peoples’ needs to be met with an emphasis on ensuring continuity in support for people. Medication management was safe. While the service did not provide accommodation to people, they acted as advocates, upholding and promoting peoples’ right to safe and well-maintained accommodation. People were supported by staff who knew their needs and preferences well. Systems were in place to record and report events which occurred with evidence of reflective practice by the staff and management team. Hazards faced by people in their everyday lives were identified and reviewed in consultation with people and their relations.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives commented specifically on the learning culture of the service. They considered that where problems had arisen in the past, that the service had sought to learn lessons and implement changes. They told us the provider was open and transparent with them and kept them informed.

Systems were in place to record and report accidents and incidents. Staff told us they were aware on how to do this. Staff confirmed how the manager and care staff reviewed all incidents to ensure that lessons were learnt. Reflective practice was built into this processes. They also described how learning was embedded to prevent future incidents.

The provider analysed any accidents or incident that had occurred. When people had become distressed or anxious, there were discussions about the cause or any environmental factors that had triggered these. These were included in care records. Recent communications received by CQC from the local authority evidenced that the provider undertook investigations following any concerns raised about the service. This demonstrated an open culture with opportunities to prevent re-occurrence. There was also evidence of reflective practice and debriefing. Systems were in place to record and report events which occurred. Significant incidents were reported internally with evidence of reflective practice and analysis by the staff and management team.

Staff ensured the safety of people was promoted. They were knowledgeable about the individual triggers and causes for people becoming distressed or anxious and were able to outline strategies to prevent or manage these occasions. The specific communication methods of people had been assessed and identified and then used to ensure effectiveness of support.

We spoke to other stakeholder agencies. Partners told us, " Management are very responsive to recommendations", "Communication has been good, and I have been able to get what I need done in a straightforward way. Overall Autism together have been helpful " and "They are open and responsive, sharing information and documents very quickly. They had a great knowledge of the service, the service users and the staff teams".

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners. Support plans evidenced involvement with people and their families when required. There were protocols in place which guided staff when and how to make referrals or escalate concerns

While people did not specifically comment on how safe they felt with the staff team, we were able to conclude from our observations that people felt comfortable and relaxed with staff and that and that positive relationships had developed. We saw them approaching staff as a source of emotional and practical support. Relatives exclusively stated that they had no concerns about the safety of their relations and felt confident that the best interests of people were promoted at all to times.

Staff were trained in safeguarding awareness. This was confirmed through speaking with staff and looking at training records. They were able to identify types of abuse and how these would be reported. They outlined the procedures available to them to do this successfully. They were certain that any concerns they had would be acted upon. They were committed to ensure the personal safety of people was maintained. Managers demonstrated transparency in reporting any safeguarding issues or care concerns. Staff were aware of whistle-blowing processes and understood the Mental Capacity Act.

There was a clear and accessible process in place for the reporting of safeguarding concerns. Managers reported these appropriately to other agencies such as the Local authority safeguarding team and the Care Quality Commission. There was a whistle blowing policy in place and this was accessible to all staff. This provided with information for them to refer to if required. Up to date training was confirmed through training records and provided evidence that staff had received training in safeguarding, the mental capacity act and best interest decision making.

Relatives were very positive about the safety of their loved ones, particularly in respect of how safety considerations by the provider had led to full involvement in community life. They said, " [Name] is able to live a full active life , engaging with the community and accessing a wide range of activities", it is a well organised, safe and caring environment”.

Staff were knowledgeable of the risks that people faced in their everyday lives. Risk assessments were devised to guide staff in areas such as health, communication or accessing the community. Staff were knowledgeable about people and were able to outline those situations which potentially would cause distress for people and how these were managed.

Risk assessments had been devised to keep people safe when pursuing activities or during their general support. These risk assessments had been devised in conjunction using the preferences of people, input from their families and the knowledge staff had about people and their needs. All aspects of life that could cause harm to people had been considered through these assessments. These extended to assessments covering specific environmental hazard within people's individual accommodation.

While responsibility for peoples’ accommodation did not form part of the registration of the service, managers confirmed that the response to maintenance issues of properties had been problematic. The registered manager had liaised with the housing association acting as an advocate for people whose accommodation required remedial attention. People had been able to personalise their living space in line with their preferences and interests. Risk assessments for staff were available relating to each address. This outlined specific environmental hazards within the homes they entered and how these would be mitigated. Information was available to staff in the event of emergencies occurring in peoples' homes such as gas leaks or flooding.

People using the service did not comment on staffing levels. Relatives did not have concerns about staffing levels and commented on the kind and professional manner of the staff team. They stated that staff at all levels had the skills and experience to successfully support their relations.

Staff told us that there were enough staff to meet the needs of people. They told us that they had received relevant training and had regular supervision. They said, "There is always enough staff" and "The same staff are used so that people we support are provided with continuity in line with their needs". They told us that some agency staff were used but not frequently and agency staff tended to be the same to ensure continuity for people. We saw that people who required one to one support or two to one support in accessible the community, were provided this at all times.

Staff rotas were available evidencing people had their needs met by staffing levels in place. Staffing dependency tools were in place. Where risks while accessing the local community had been identified, some people received support from more than one person to maintain their safety. Staff rotas were developed reflecting peoples' assessed needs. Staff were recruited safely. This was a robust system and included all necessary checks completed before staff could support vulnerable people. Staff received induction and supervision on a regular basis to observe practice and check their competency to perform their role. Staff received training they needed to meet peoples care needs. This included regular training to support people with all aspects of their daily lives and assessed needs.

People did not comment on infection control.

Managers provided evidence that they had an infection control procedure in place and staff received training. Risk of infection was assessed, identified and managed to ensure it did not spread. They were aware of other agencies they could contact for advice.

No one commented on the arrangements for medicines.

Staff told us that they received training and had their competency checked regularly to ensure that medicines were administered safely. This meant that the health of people was promoted by systems the service had in place. They told us that care plans included personalised administration procedures which had been modified with the agreement of people or through staff's experience of individual preferences. Where administration had been covert; they were fully aware of the arrangements to achieve this safely. Staff were provided with detailed information about the medicines they administered and any potential side effects that they need to look for and act upon. Medication errors were rare, yet safeguards were in place to ensure competency in this area if a pattern of non-administration or repeated errors were made by staff.

Medication storage was safe. Each individual had their medication individually stored and secured in their own accommodation. Storage was not conspicuous and did not impact on the homely appearance of their homes. Medication records were completed and staff provided with a good deal of information about the medication and its purpose. Processes were in place where covert medication had been agreed upon through best interest decisions with staff having clear guidance on how the medication should be prepared and administered to the person appropriately. Where people had been prescribed medication to be given when required (known as PRN), detailed protocols were in place to ensure continuity of when best to administer the medicine. Reasons for administration were clear whether it be for pain or anxiety. Some medicines were prescribed to reduce any distress people experienced yet strategies in support plans were in place and were used in the first instance to good effect.