Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


159 Wensley Road, Coley Park, Reading.

159 Wensley Road in Coley Park, Reading is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults under 65 yrs, learning disabilities, mental health conditions and physical disabilities. The last inspection date here was 17th December 2019

159 Wensley Road is managed by Mrs Olayinka I Bukola.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      159 Wensley Road
      159 Wensley Road
      Coley Park
      Reading
      RG1 6DU
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01189589022

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-12-17
    Last Published 2017-04-05

Local Authority:

    Reading

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

14th March 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

159 Wensley Road is a small residential care home providing care and accommodation for up to four people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were three people living at the service.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

People continued to receive safe care. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely. Risk assessments were completed and reviewed regularly to enable people to receive support with the minimum of risk and were as least restrictive as possible. Medicines were managed safely by staff who had received relevant training. When appropriate, people were supported to manage their medicines independently. Staff were aware of and had practiced emergency procedures.

People continued to receive effective care. Staff were trained and supported to have the skills and knowledge they required to perform their role. People’s healthcare needs were monitored and they were supported to seek advice from healthcare professionals when 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.

The service remained caring. People had positive and trusting relationships with staff. They told us they got on well with staff and appreciated their support. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and treated them with respect. People made decisions about their care assisted by their key worker and other health and social care professionals. People were supported to be as independent as possible. They were enabled to acquire additional skills to enhance their independence.

The service remained responsive. Support plans were personalised and focussed on each individual. People had been involved in creating the plans which identified the preferences of each individual along with their lifestyle choices. People discussed their support plans regularly with their key worker and were encouraged to challenge and change them if they wished. People knew how to raise a complaint if they needed to and were confident in speaking to staff about any concerns they had.

The service was well-led. Improvements had been made following the previous inspection. A system was now in place to monitor and mitigate risks to people’s health, safety and well-being and action had been taken to resolve issues and concerns. Records relating to the management of the regulated activity were now stored securely in locked filing cabinets. The process of updating policies had been started, however, a duty of candour policy had not yet been created. The registered manager agreed to address this immediately. There was an open culture that promoted empowerment for people living at the service. The registered manager clearly wanted to work towards improving the service and engaged staff effectively in working toward this. People’s views were sought and the quality of the service was monitored.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

17th April 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection team who carried out this inspection consisted of two inspectors. During the inspection, the inspectors worked to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and secure. The staff we spoke with understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. They were able to describe the different ways that people might experience abuse and the correct steps to take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place. Recruitment procedures were rigorous and thorough.

We saw that the home was clean but in need of decorating. Some furniture needed replacing as it was worn and damaged.

Procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place and staff were able to describe the action they would take to ensure the safety of the people who use the service. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The Manager was able to describe the circumstances when an application should be made and knew how to submit one. A policy with regard to this had been reviewed and rewritten in February 2014 in light of new guidance.

Is the service effective?

People all had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. People told us they had been fully involved in the assessment of their health and care needs and had contributed to developing their care plan. This meant that people were sure that their individual care needs and wishes were known and planned for.

People had access to a range of health care professionals. For example: psychologist, neurologist and optician. People were escorted to healthcare appointments if needed.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by friendly and attentive staff who spoke politely to them. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People we spoke with told us staff listened to them and took note of what they said. They told us they felt staff were easy to talk to and they could ask questions at any time.

Staff were aware of people’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs. Our observations of the care provided, and discussions with people told us that individual wishes for care and support were taken into account and respected. This was confirmed by the records we looked at.

Is the service responsive?

People told us, that they were able to participate in a range of activities both in the home and in the local community. On the day of our visit two people were looking forward to going to visit their families for Easter and others were going out to do some shopping. The activities provided by the home included work placements, gardening projects, and attendance at day services as well as hobbies such as music and transport. The activities reflected the likes, dislikes and preferences of the people who use the service.

People told us they were involved in reviewing their plans of care when their needs changed. One person’s care plan stated they wanted to self-medicate, we saw how a positive risk taking assessment had enabled this. The home had a system to assure the quality of service they provided. The way the service was run had been regularly reviewed and action taken when necessary to address any shortfalls. Trends in accidents and incidents had been monitored, advice sought and action taken appropriately to prevent reoccurrence. People’s personal care records, and other records kept in the home, were accurate and complete.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and professionals to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. The service has a quality assurance system and we saw that any identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. Staff had a good knowledge of their roles and responsibilities and could seek advice from senior staff and managers.

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance processes in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

14th May 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

At the time of the inspection four people were living at the home. We spoke with two people living at the home and three care workers who supported them, including the manager. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed living at the home and felt supported and encouraged by care workers. One person told us, ”I like it here, people are nice and they make me laugh.”

We reviewed two care plans and found these to be person centred and regularly reviewed. They were written by both the person and their key worker. This ensured the person was giving their consent and care workers knew how they wanted to be supported. Care plans recorded people had access to other services to support their health and social needs.

Medication was administered by suitably trained care workers who were knowledgeable about people’s needs.

Care workers were supported by management and received regular supervision and had access to relevant training. Annual appraisals were also completed and care workers were encouraged to undertake further qualifications.

The manager had systems in place to assess and monitor the service being provided to people living at the home. The manager also sought the views of care workers and people living at the home so they had an understanding of the service and the support given to people.

11th January 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Four people were living at the home at the time of our visit. We looked through two care plans and their associated risks assessment. We reviewed two staff recruitment files and the home’s complaints and safeguarding procedures. We spoke to two care workers, including the manager and two people who live at the home.

We saw each person had their own room, which they had personalised to their preference. The bedroom doors had locks with keys held by the individual person and we were informed by people living at the home that no one entered their rooms without knocking. This ensured that people living at the home had privacy.

One person told us,”I like living here; I am able to sleep when I want. The people here are nice and this is my home”.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. We saw people had busy lives and weekly activity planners for each person were on view in the office. During our visit two people were out all day, while two others were seen to be supported leaving the house and going to the local shops. We saw the staff implemented behaviour management plans, which included a reward system to encourage appropriate behaviour.

We saw positive interactions between staff and the people living in the home.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on the 29 October and 3 November 2015. The inspection was unannounced. This was a responsive inspection due to safeguarding concerns raised by a commissioning authority.

159 Wensley Road is a care home which is registered to provide care for four adults with a learning disability. The house has communal living spaces and small garden. It is set in a residential area close to local shops and not far from the centre of Reading.

The home has 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.

People were supported by a small team of staff who worked well together. There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and ensure that they were able to take part in their chosen activities. Staff were well supported by the registered manager. They had received the training and development required to support people’s needs.

People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and knew what action to take if they suspected abuse was occurring. Staff were able to describe how they ensured that people made choices about their care and support. They knew what action to take to ensure that where people were not able to make decisions they received the most appropriate support.

The care provided was effective, people’s care plans detailed what their support needs were and how they wanted them to be met. Risk assessments for people were personalised, reviewed and updated frequently. Staff knew the people living in Wensley Road well. There was a relaxed friendly atmosphere where people were treated with dignity, respect and kindness.

The manager was well respected and both staff and people spoke highly of her. She involved the staff team and people by asking their opinion and involving them in making decisions. People’s care was reviewed regularly and the manager clearly knew the people and staff team well.

Home audits which identified health and safety risks had been completed and shared with the provider but no action had been taken to address the concerns raised. External Quality assurance audits had been carried out in 2014 but many were not fully complete. Where improvements had been identified as required there was no evidence that action had been taken.

Not all records were stored appropriately. Archived files containing confidential information were not stored securely and were at risk of being destroyed by weather damage.

This was a breach of Regulation 17: Good Governance of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

 

 

Latest Additions: