You are here

Woodside Care Home Requires improvement

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 January 2017

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of Woodside Care Home on 21 July 2016. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches.

We undertook a focused inspection on 25 January 2017 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. During this inspection on the 25 January 2017 we found the provider had made some improvements in the areas we had identified. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woodside Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Woodside Care Home provides care and support for up to 42 people. When we undertook our inspection there were 20 people living at the home. People living at the home were mainly older people. Some people required more assistance either because of physical illnesses or because they were experiencing difficulties coping with everyday tasks, with some people living with dementia.

There was a registered manager in post. 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. However, the registered manager was not available during our inspection and a different manager was monitoring the home.

People had not been consulted about the development of the home and quality checks had only just begun to be completed to ensure the home could meet people’s requirements. There had been few meetings with staff to ensure they were aware about the changes within the environment. The clinical governance measures were not robust enough and did not reflect whether lessons had been learnt from audits to measure the quality of the service. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Some areas of the home which had been in need of repair had improved. Work had been completed to change flooring, redecorate communal areas, new furniture had been purchased and unsafe areas in bathrooms had new flooring. Schedules were in place to monitor the cleanliness of the premises. However, these had only just commenced and not been analysed for effectiveness of the programme. There was no maintenance or refurbishment plan in place to ensure people were living in premises of an acceptable standard.

Infection control prevention procedures had been put in place and staff were aware how to implement them to prevent people from being harmed.

Inspection carried out on 21 July 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected Woodside Care Home on 21 July 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. The service provides care and support for up to 42 people. Some people required more assistance than others either because of physical illnesses or because they were experiencing difficulties coping with everyday tasks and loss of memory. When we undertook our inspection there were 26 people living at the home.

People living at the home were older people. Some people required more assistance either because of physical illnesses or because they were experiencing difficulties coping with everyday tasks and loss of memory.

There was no registered manager in post. However, an interview date was set by CQC for the following week for the current 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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. At the time of our inspection there was no one subject to such an authorisation.

We found that there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people using the service. The provider had taken into consideration the complex needs of each person to ensure their needs could be met through a 24 hour period.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered through the use of a care plan. However, people were not always involved in the planning of their care and had not always had sight of their care plan. The information and guidance provided to staff in the care plans was however clear. Risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed and plans put in place to minimise risk in order to keep people safe. Care plans were currently under review to ensure all people’s needs were being met.

People were treated with kindness and respect. The staff in the home took time to speak with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to the staff in the home. The staff on duty knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People were supported to maintain their independence, choices and control over their lives. Staff had used family and friends as guides to obtain information.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks. Meals could be taken in a dining room, sitting rooms or people’s own bedrooms. Staff encouraged people to eat their meals and gave assistance to those that required it.

The provider used safe systems when new staff were recruited. All new staff completed training before working in the home. The staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the action to take if they were concerned about the welfare of an individual.

People had not been consulted about the development of the home. A new audit process had been put in place and checks on the quality of the services being provided had recently commenced. Therefore the provider had limited information to judge whether the services provided met people’s needs. No systems were in place to monitor the upkeep of the building that adequate fire precautions were being maintained and there was no refurbishment plan in place. Due to building work in progress within the grounds the infection control procedures were being compromised.

Inspection carried out on 17 November 2015

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 15 and 18 May 2015. Two breaches of legal requirements were found. After the inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches.

At the last inspection on 15 and 18 May 2015 we found that the provider was not meeting the standards of care we expect. This was in relation to ensuring people were involved in the planning of their care. Also that those without capacity were not assessed to ensure the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being fulfilled. There were also no systems in place to test the quality of the services being used and whether staff were working safely.

We undertook this focused inspection on 17 November 2015 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm they now met the legal requirements. During this inspection on the 17 November 2015 we found the provider had made improvements in the areas we had identified.

This report only covers our findings in relations to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woodside Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Woodside Care Home provides care for older people who require personal care. It provides accommodation for up to 42 people. At the time of the inspection there were 32 people living at the home.

At the time of the inspection there was not a registered manager in post. 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.

On the day of our inspection we found staff interacted well with people and people were cared for safely. People told us their needs were being met and they were involved in the planning of their care and treatment. Where people did not have capacity to make decisions for themselves staff had implemented the Mental Capacity Act 2005 guidelines and recorded their decision making processes. There was sufficient evidence to show the provider was testing the quality of the services being provided and they were checking staff were working safely.

Inspection carried out on 15 & 18 May 2015

During a routine inspection

The service provides care and support for up to 42 people. When we undertook our inspection there were 32 people living at the service.

People in the home were mainly older people. They had varying degrees of mobility needs, with some requiring wheelchairs and some assistance from staff to walk. A small number of people preferred to stay in their bedrooms each day. A number of people were at different stages of dementia.

We inspected Woodside Care Home on 15 and 18 May 2015. This was an unannounced inspection. Our last inspection took place on 27 October 2014 during which we found the home was meeting all the required standards.

There was no registered manager in post. The home had been without a registered manager for three months. 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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. There were no people living at the home that were subject to any such restrictions. Staff were unaware of mental capacity and DoLS processes.

People had not been consulted about the development of the home and quality checks had not been completed. Some areas of the home and some equipment required refurbishment and there was no plan in place to ensure the environment and equipment was updated and kept clean.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to the number of staff available at times and a lack of quality assurance systems. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full report.

People were not involved in the planning of their care. We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered in a consistent way through the use of a care plan. The information was clearly written and risks identified. However, these had not been consistently reviewed and people were not involved in that process.

The staff on duty knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. The staff in the home took time to speak with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to the staff in the home.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks. Meals could be taken in a dining room, sitting rooms or people’s own bedrooms. Staff encouraged people to eat their meals and gave assistance to those that required it.

The provider used safe systems when new staff were recruited. All new staff completed training before working in the home. The staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the action to take if they were concerned about the welfare of an individual. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

Inspection carried out on 23 and 27 October 2014

During a routine inspection

We undertook an inspection on 23 and 27 October 2014. We did not give the provider prior knowledge about our visit.

Woodside Care Home provides accommodation for persons who require personal care and can

accommodate 42 people. At the time of our inspection 39 people were using the service. People were mainly older people and those suffering from dementia related illnesses.

At our last inspection on 06 August 2013 the service met the regulations we inspected.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since July 2011. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff included people in discussions about their environment and what they would like to do each day.

There was a safe environment for people who used the service and staff. Staff were knowledgeable in recognising signs of abuse and the associated reporting procedures.

Medicines were securely stored and administered. People were receiving their prescribed medicines.

Assessments were undertaken to identify people’s health and support needs and any risks to people who used the service and others. Plans were in place to reduce the risks identified. Care plans were developed with people who used the service to identify how they wished to be supported. Where people could not make decisions for themselves staff knew how to assess their mental capacity and who to ask to appoint an independent advocate.

Staff had the knowledge and skills to support people who used the service. Staffing levels had recently been increased to ensure staff had time to met people’s needs.

Staff were supported by the manager and were able to raise any concerns with them. Lessons were learnt from incidents that occurred at the service and improvements were made when required. The manager reviewed processes and practices to ensure people received a quality service.

Inspection carried out on 7 August 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

People who used the service told us they were involved in putting their care plans together. They told us staff took time to sit and talk with them about their current needs. One person said, "Staff are patient and listen to me." Another person told us, " I like my time with the staff,especially when they are talking with me about what I want to do each day."

Inspection carried out on 23 April 2013

During a routine inspection

Most people we spoke with talked positively about the staff and felt they fully supported their care needs. People told us the staff spoke with them in a calm manner and listened to them. One person said, "Staff here are so good ad kind to me." Another told us, "Staff help me walk with my frame or push me in my wheelchair but they don't hurry me." Two people raised concerns. One person told us they had not received a bath and a relative told us they had, "Raised care issues" but, "They are now resolved."

People told us they had consented to any prescribed treatment from doctors, or other health and social care professionals. They told us they had been open to options given to them by care staff about how to maintain their independence. This had not always been recorded in the care plans.

The people who used the service told us they knew how to raise a concern but no one had raised any formal complaints. One person told us, "Any issue has been resolved quickly and efficiently." The complaints policy was on display.

People were not asked their opinions about staff recruitment.

Inspection carried out on 11 September 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

As part of our inspection we spoke with people who use the service. They spoke positively about the care and support they received. They told us their views had been sought by staff speaking to them personally, residents' meetings and questionnaires.

Comments from people who used the service included, "I can always talk to staff", "I can ask staff to do anything for me and they are so kind and patient" and "I am happy enough here."

During the visit we spoke to a relative who confirmed they were asked their opinions about the quality of service offered to their family member. They told us staff were patient and willing to listen.

Inspection carried out on 16 April 2012

During a routine inspection

As part of our inspection we spoke with a number of people who use the service. They spoke positively about the care and support they received. They told us they liked living in the home and confirmed that they were supported to make choices and decisions about the care they received. Some people gave us negative comments about how their views were sought and staffing levels within the home.

Positive comments included, "The girls are wonderful here", "The staff help me with any thing I want to do" and "Staff discuss my care plan."

Negative comments included, "Sometimes staff take a long time to answer my call bell", "I cant always get someone to take me out shopping" and "Staff dont ask me if I like living here."

During the visit we spoke with visitors who expressed their satisfaction with the standards of care at the home. They told us the staff were good and they were kept informed of any changes.

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