Wisteria Care

Not everyone received a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’ which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.

At the time of the assessment there were 89 people using the service.

This assessment was carried out due to concerns we had received about the service. At our last inspection the service was rated good, at this assessment the service has been rated requires improvement.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability.

Care plans and risk assessments did not always detail all the required information and risks had not always been assessed. This placed people at risk of harm.

Medicines were not always managed safely. Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was not always followed.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs, however some staff told us they were rushed and travel time was not factored into their runs. The registered manager was addressing this. Some staffs understanding of safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures varied, most knew about reporting concerns to external agencies. The registered manager had taken steps to reinforce safeguarding and whistleblowing information.

We received mixed feedback from staff regarding the training, and the registered manager was arranging additional training for staff. The governance systems were not fully effective and had not identified the concerns we found during this assessment. The registered manager completed checks and audits, but these had not been effective in monitoring quality or driving improvement. The registered manager was responsive to our feedback.

We found breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, need for consent and good governance. The provider took some immediate action during the assessment; however, governance systems were not robust enough to provide ongoing assurance.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff told us how they promoted choice and person-centred care. People and relatives were involved in decisions about their care. People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care; professionals gave mixed feedback about the service. Most staff felt supported and felt they were treated equally.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to some of the concerns found at this assessment. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and or appeals have been concluded.