You are here

Woodville Residential Care Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 4 November 2017

Woodville Residential Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 46 people who require personal care support. At the time of our inspection there were 45 people using the service. Some people that were using the service were living with dementia.

This inspection took place on the 26 September 2017. This was an unannounced inspection. Prior to this inspection we received information of concern regarding the management of medicines. Our last comprehensive unannounced inspection took place on 12 August 2015 and the provider was rated as good overall and were meeting all the regulations that we checked relating to the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Since August 2017 the organisation Greenacres Nursing Homes Limited that owns Woodville Residential Care Home had been purchased by Prime Life. This means that the changes to registration are that of the company directors and the nominated individual. A nominated individual acts as the main point of contact with us on behalf of the organisation and carries responsibility for supervising the management of the service.

The service did not have a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. 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. A manager had been appointed under the new directors and confirmed they were in the process of applying to register with us.

People’s needs were not always met in a timely way as the staffing levels were insufficient. The limited staff numbers meant opportunities for people to receive social stimulation were limited. This had been identified by the new providers and was being addressed. We could not be assured that identified risks to people were minimised; as some information was conflicting and not updated when people’s needs changed. The medicine practices in place did not demonstrate that people always received their medicine as prescribed. Checks to monitor the support and services provided were limited. Those that had been undertaken were not always effective in analysing any themes and trends, to ensure risks to people were minimised. This had been identified by the new provider and systems were being put in place to address this.

Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and checks had been completed before staff commenced employment, to ensure they were suitable to support people. The provider checked that the equipment was regularly serviced to ensure it was safe to use. Staff told us that they were supported by the management team and were provided with the relevant training to ensure people’s needs could be met.

Staff gained people’s verbal consent before supporting them with any care tasks and helped people to make their own decisions. Where people were unable to make decisions the staff supported them in their best interests. People received food and drink that met their nutritional needs and preferences and were referred to healthcare professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People told us that they liked the staff and we saw that people’s dignity and privacy was respected by the staff team. Visitors told us they were made to feel welcome and that staff were approachable and friendly

People and their relatives were involved in discussions about how they were cared for and supported. Complaints were responded to and the provider’s complaints policy and procedure was accessible to people. The provider had ensured that people and their representatives had been consulted regarding the changes in home ownership and the improvements planned. Plans were in place to gather people’s views through satisfaction questionnaires.

We found breaches 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.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 4 November 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

The staffing levels in place did not ensure people’s individual needs were met. Risks to people’s health and welfare were not always accurately recorded. The management of medicines was not safe as people had not always received their medicines as prescribed. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and the recruitment practices in place checked staff’s suitability to work with people. Arrangements were in place to minimise risks to people’s safety in relation to the premises and equipment.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 November 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by trained staff. Staff had guidance on how to support people in their best interests when they were unable to make decisions independently. People’s nutritional needs were met and they were supported to maintain good health and to access healthcare services when they needed them.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 November 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that knew them well and interacted with them in a caring way. People’s privacy was respected and they were supported to maintain their dignity and independence. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 4 November 2017

The service was not consistently responsive.

People’s individual needs were not fully met as social opportunities were limited. People and their relatives were involved in discussions about how they were cared for and supported. Complaints were responded to appropriately. The provider’s complaints policy and procedure was accessible to people who lived at the home and their relatives.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 4 November 2017

The service was not consistently well led.

The quality assurance checks were limited and those done had not been effective in identifying where improvements were needed. People and staff had been consulted regarding the change in ownership of the home and plans were in place to enable people and their representatives to give their views about the quality of the service. Staff felt supported and listened to by the manager.