You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 April 2016

A Woodlands House is a residential care home which provides care and support for up to 14 older people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people living at the home.

The service had 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.

The registered manager is also one of the providers; they were in day to day charge and worked alongside staff in order to provide care for people. The provider is the person who has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law. Providers are often the owner of the service and are the ‘registered person’ with the CQC. 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.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe .Staff felt that reported signs of suspected abuse would be taken seriously and knew who to contact externally should they feel their concerns had not been dealt with appropriately.

Systems were in place to identify risks and protect people from harm. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed monthly. Where someone was identified as being at risk actions were identified on how to reduce the risk and referrals were made to health professionals as required.

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure the safe ordering, administration, storage and disposal of medicines. Medicines were managed, stored, given to people as prescribed and disposed of safely.

Safe recruitment practices were followed. Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS) had been requested and were present in all checked records. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs. The registered manager told us that they did not use agency staff as they liked to ensure that staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and the care they needed.

People’s rights were upheld as the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been adhered to. The registered manager had made DoLS applications for all the people living at the home to ensure people’s rights were protected.

Staff spoke with us about the range of training they received which included safeguarding, food hygiene and dementia training. Relatives felt that staff were suitably trained and felt confident that they knew how to support people with dementia.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health professionals. Dietary needs and nutritional requirements had been assessed and recorded. Weight charts were seen and had been completed appropriately on a monthly basis.

Staff knew people well and they were treated in a dignified and respectful way. A relative told us “they are remarkably patient, I’ve never heard a raised voice. They have some well-developed interpersonal skills”.

The care that people received was responsive to their needs. People’s care plans contained information about their life history and staff spoke with us about the importance of knowing people’s backgrounds. Staff told us “we let them settle in gently the first few days and we sit and chat about likes and dislikes”, “we sit and have a cup of tea and make them feel at ease”.

Quality assurance systems were in place to regularly review the quality of the service that was provided. Feedback from people, relatives and professionals were sought to monitor quality.

Relatives told us the home was well led and that there was regular contact with the registered manager.

Staff and relatives spoke positively of the registered manager and deputy manager. A relative told us “the main thing is they’re approachable if I wanted to chat I know I can”.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 April 2016

The service was safe.

Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to recognise and report abuse.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to make sure that people were safe and their needs were met.

Risk assessments were in place and were regularly reviewed to ensure that they reflected people’s current level of risk.

Medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 April 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had received training as required to ensure that they were able to meet people’s needs effectively.

People were supported to maintain good health and had regular contact with health care professionals.

People’s rights were protected as the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 April 2016

The service was caring.

People were treated in a dignified and respectful way.

People and those that mattered to them were involved in decisions about their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 April 2016

The service was responsive.

People received care which was personalised and responsive to their needs.

There were structured and meaningful activities for people to take part in.

People and relatives felt able to express concerns and feedback was encouraged.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 April 2016

The service was well led.

People and their relatives were positive about the quality of care delivered.

Quality assurance systems were in place and were used to improve the service.

Staff felt supported and were able to discuss any concerns with the registered manager.