Archived: Woodside Lodge

We spoke with four people using the service, three relatives, three members of staff and the service's acting manager. We observed support given to people using the service during our inspection. The four people spoken with told us they were happy and liked living at the service. One person said the service they received was 'jolly good' and they couldn't do 'anything but praise it.' A relative told us, 'I wouldn't want [the relative] to be anywhere else' than at the service. People looked happy and contented, and care and support were observed to be respectful and responsive to individuals' needs.

Staff ensured people were enabled to give their consent to care and support whenever possible. Where people did not have capacity to consent, effective systems ensured their rights and well-being were protected in line with legal requirements.

People at the service and staff knew and got on well with each other. We reviewed care plans for four people and found they were detailed, up-to-date and person-centred.

The service's systems and approach to care ensured people were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration. Medicines were safely administered, and appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to the obtaining, storage and recording of medicines.

The provider's recruitment and selection processes ensured staff employed were suitable and sufficiently skilled to provide effective care and support to vulnerable people. People were given any support necessary if they wanted to complain, and the service responded positively to any comments and complaints received.

People told us they were happy at the service. One person told us 'I'm happy here', and another person told us they had 'nothing to moan about'. All six people we spoke with were positive about the support they received from staff. One person told us that staff worked hard and 'don't just sit around'; and another that staff were 'always busy trying to do something'.

We reviewed care plans for four people using the service, and they were person-centred and contained essential details about people's care and support needs. People living at the service and staff knew and got on well with each other, and support was observed to be responsive to basic individual needs.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We saw people did not receive adequate stimulation. Staff interaction with people was polite and respectful, but in many of the instances observed it was brief and impersonal. There was a lack of organised and meaningful activities for people, and staff told us this was due in part to inadequate staffing levels.

There were effective procedures in place for safeguarding vulnerable adults and staff followed appropriate safeguarding processes. There were effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service people receive.