You are here

Woodville Residential Care Home Requires improvement

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 September 2017

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 12 August 2015

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 19 August 2014

During a routine inspection

At the time of this inspection there were 46 people using the service. We spoke with two people receiving care and one relative, the manager and two staff working at the service. We also observed people receiving care and examined records at the service. Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us they felt safe living at the service and were able to describe what they would do if they were worried about anything. Staff had received training on keeping vulnerable people safe.

People told us that staff usually talked things over with them before and during carrying out their care. However, adequate arrangements were not in place for decisions to be made on people’s behalf when they did not have the capacity to consent. We have asked the provider to tell us what they will do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to mental capacity.

Is the service effective?

Care plans provided staff with guidance in meeting most people’s needs. Recorded risk assessments were in place to address risks to which people may have been exposed. However, these records were not in place for everyone. This meant that staff were not being provided with up-to-date guidance as to how they should safely manage risks for everyone. We have asked the provider to tell us what they will do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to assessing people’s needs and risks they may be exposed to.

Staff had positive views on the service. One member of staff told us that, “it’s up to us to make [the service] happy and safe.”

Is the service caring?

People told us they thought that staff knew their personal wishes, interests and preferences and thought that their needs were met at the service. One person said, “I can pretty well do as I like.” Staff told us that most activities reflected people’s individual preferences.

We observed, and heard, staff interacting warmly and sensitively with people who used the service.

Is the service responsive?

People’s personal records showed that staff were encouraged to take an approach to people which was centred on their individual needs. People’s personal preferences and interests were identified and acted on and care and support was provided that met people’s wishes.

One staff member we spoke with gave us an example of action the service had taken following a suggestion they had made. Another member of staff told us, “If I have a problem it will be sorted.” Staff told us they felt listened to by the manager.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system which identified, assessed and managed risks to people’s health, safety and welfare.

Staff described a sound set of values upon which the service was based. These included meeting people’s needs for privacy, confidentiality and empathy and providing a clean and tidy environment.

Inspection carried out on 17 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people and observed others. We spoke with two visitors and three staff. People living at the home told us they were given choices as to how they preferred to spend their day. They told us they were able to get up with assistance when they needed this. They said they were asked about their preferences and made choices about their bath times or the type of meals they liked.

People were provided with a comprehensive care plan that looked at what they needed and guided care workers as to how they should meet people’s needs. Those who spoke with us told us they were satisfied with their care and were happy with staff who provided their care.

People said doctors and nurses visited the home when they needed them. They also confirmed visits by the chiropodist, dentist and optician.

We asked a visitor to the home if they had any concerns about any of the staff employed at the home. They told us they had no concerns and added “staff know what to do and they do it well”.

People who spoke with us told us they were aware of care workers making daily notes about them. They also indicated they had no concerns in this area.

Inspection carried out on 11 July 2012

During a routine inspection

A relative told us, “if my relative is unwell someone from the home will ring and let me know”.

One person living at the home told us, “the home is kept spotlessly clean through out just look at my bedroom”. We could see the room was well maintained and clean in appearance.

Inspection carried out on 6 September 2011

During a routine inspection

Everyone we spoke with was happy with the standards of the care service. People told us that they liked using the service, that it was 'absolutely marvellous' and that staff were 'well organised' and 'helpful'. One person said ' I feel safe' and another that they were 'very pleased' with the care. Relatives told us that the care was 'good' and that the service was 'welcoming'.

People enjoyed their food and the activities that the service provided. One person said the food was 'very good' and another that 'I've enjoyed the meals all the tine I've been here'.

Visiting professionals told us that they had 'no concerns' about the care. They told us that the service responded well to professional advice and guidance.

People told us the premises were odour free and tidy and that they were 'clean' and 'homely'.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)