Woodlands Care Home

Woodlands Care Home is a residential home for up to 19 older people living with the experience of dementia. At the time of the inspection 18 people were using the service. The home is owned and managed by a private limited company. This is a family business and Woodlands Care Home is the only registered location for the provider. The provider owns a day centre, which is next to the care home. This is not regulated by the Care Quality Commission.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People living at the service, and their visitors, were happy with the care they received. They spoke extremely positively about how caring the staff were, and we also witnessed kind and thoughtful interactions. People's needs were being met and they were able to make choices about how they spent their time. Where people were not able to make complex decisions, their relatives were involved in planning care, so this reflected their preferences. There was a wide range of different activities for people to participate in. The home had a lively atmosphere and the staff paid attention to people making sure they were comfortable, happy and had everything they needed.

People's dignity, equality and human rights were respected. Everyone was treated as an individual and able to express their choices. The provider had promoted LGBT+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) awareness at the service. They also ensured that the activities, food and structure of the day reflected people's cultural needs and identities.

The staff liked working at the service. They felt supported and had the training and information they needed. There were processes to make sure only suitable staff were recruited. Their competencies and knowledge were assessed, and they were giving a range of training and an induction to the service. There were regular team and individual staff meetings with the registered manager where they could discuss the service and their work.

The registered manager shared information about changes in national guidance, best practice and relevant legislation with staff and also other stakeholders. During team meetings, the staff discussed these areas and were able to ask for further training or to take a lead in champion specific areas within the service. The newsletter, which was shared with all stakeholders, gave clear and relevant information about different topics as well as news about the service. For example, a recent newsletter had included information about LGBT+ awareness, changes in regulations relating to data and information about Clinical Commissioning Groups and how these related to the service.

People's needs were recorded in clear and well-ordered care plans. These were regularly reviewed and updated. The staff recorded the care and support they gave to people each day, and this showed that care plans were followed. People were supported to be independent where they were able, and the staff had assessed any risks to their safety and wellbeing. They received their medicines on time and as prescribed. The staff liaised with other health care professionals to make sure people received the treatment and medical interventions they needed. The provider employed a chef who knew people's likes and dislikes and provided a choice of freshly prepared meals. The chef had undertaken specialist training regarding the risk of choking and food textures, so they made sure food and fluid textures were suitable for each person's needs. People were offered drinks throughout the day and could help themselves to drinks 24 hours a day from a 'juice bar' situated in the lounge.

The owner of the company was also the registered manager. They had managed the home since 2011 and previously worked there as part of the family business. They had a management qualification. They had a very good knowledge of individuals who lived and worked at the service. The staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager. Some staff told us that the registered manager had shown exceptional support and understanding of their particular needs. People's visitors told us the management team were open and approachable. People knew how to make a complaint and felt these would be responded to appropriately. There were systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service, and these included asking stakeholders for their views. Information about the service, activities, menus, policies and procedures were displayed for the people who lived there and their relatives.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 29 April 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woodlands Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Woodlands Care Home provides personal care for up to 19 people with dementia care needs in single bedrooms. At the time of the inspection the home was full.

The registered manager had worked at the service for several years. 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.

Staff recruitment procedures were not always being robustly followed to ensure only suitable staff were employed by the service. This was addressed promptly following the inspection.

We identified some shortfalls with medicine stock checks and monitoring, so medicines were not always being safely managed. The registered manager addressed the findings and took action to better monitor medicines management.

Systems for monitoring the service were in place, however they were not robust and did not always identify shortfalls. The registered manager took action to address the areas of concern promptly and to introduce more robust monitoring processes for the service.

People, relatives and health and social care professionals were happy with the care and support being provided at the service.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and staff understood the action to take if they had any concerns.

Risk assessments and action plans were in place for individual risks so these were minimised. Systems and equipment were being maintained and serviced to maintain their safety.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Staff received training to provide them with the skills and knowledge to care for people effectively.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). DoLS were in place to ensure that people’s freedom was not unduly restricted. Staff understood people’s needs and acted in their best interests.

People’s dietary needs and preferences were being identified and met. People’s nutritional needs and status were assessed and monitored.

People’s healthcare needs were identified and they received input from the GP, community nurse and other healthcare professionals when required.

Staff understood the individual care and support people needed and provided this in a kind and caring manner.

Staff offered people choices and treated them in a respectful and dignified way.

Care records were personalised and up to date and changes in people’s condition were identified and included in the care plans.

The service provided a wide variety of activities for people to take part in and there was a good atmosphere in the service.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people and relatives felt able to raise any concerns they might have.

The registered manager and deputy manager were approachable and listened to people, relatives and staff so that any issues could be promptly addressed. The registered manager strived to continually improve the experiences for people living at the service.