Archived: Dimensions Woodview 97 Wantage Road

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good:

The service continued to be responsive to people's changing needs and staff ensured people had support that met their needs. The management team acknowledged that access to activities outside of the service were impacted upon by not all staff being able to drive, and therefore, take people out. However, the provider was taking steps to recruit staff that could drive so people could out more. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint but told us they hadn’t needed to.

The service continued to have systems in place to safeguard people. Individual risks were assessed, recorded and managed to keep people safe from avoidable harm. Medicines were managed safely. The premises were kept clean which protected people from the risk of infection. Staffing levels were assessed for each person to ensure their needs were safely met. Equipment and premises were regularly checked to ensure the environment was safe. Where incidents or accidents occurred, these were used to make improvements to minimise risk of occurrence.

People continued to receive effective support from suitably trained and skilled staff. People had their needs assessed fully before being supported by the service. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met and choices offered. Staff told us and records confirmed staff were well supported in their roles. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; policies and systems in the service support this practice. Health advice and treatment was sought appropriately.

The service remained caring. People were greeted warmly when they arrived and looked relaxed and settled. Staff were committed to deliver good quality care to meet people’s needs; both physical and emotional. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times and terminology in care records was respectful.

There was no registered manager, however the service remained well managed. 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. At the time of the inspection the service was run by an acting manager who had applied to become registered with the Care Quality Commission.

There was a positive, open culture that valued people, relatives and staff. The provider had effective systems in place to ensure people experienced good quality care. The staff worked well with professionals to ensure a holistic approach to meeting people’s needs.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

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. The registered manager worked closely with an assistant locality manager.

People who were supported by the provider told us they felt safe. The staff had a clear understanding on how to safeguard the people and protect their health and well-being. There were systems in place to manage safe administration and storage of medicines. There were enough suitably qualified and experienced staff to meet people needs. The service had safe, robust recruitment processes.

Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to reduce the risks. People had a range of individualised risk assessments to keep them safe and to help them maintain their independence. However, these were not always up to date. We gained assurance from the manager that these were under review.

People received care from staff who understood their needs. Staff received adequate training and support to carry out their roles effectively. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may lack the capacity to make their own decisions.

People were supported to have their nutritional needs met and were supported to make healthy meals. People were given choices. Staff knew people well, understood their individual preferences and unique ways of communicating.

There was a calm, warm and friendly atmosphere at the service. Staff were motivated and inspired to give kind and compassionate care. Staff knew the people they cared for and what was important to them. Staff appreciated people’s unique life histories and understood how these could influence the way people wanted to be cared for. People's choices and wishes were respected and recorded in their care records.

People and relatives told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern. Complaints were dealt with in a compassionate and timely fashion. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning was identified and action taken to make improvements which improved people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.

The service had good quality assurances in place and the registered manager used these to develop and improve the service. Staff spoke positively about the management and direction they had from the manager. The service had systems to enable people to provide feedback on the support they received.

People told us that they were involved in their care and were treated with respect.

Staff sought people's consent and explained care before giving it.

One person told us that 'They see us as a person, as an adult individual.' Another person told us 'I love it very much. All the carers look after me.'

People said that they felt safe whilst at the service.

The provider had a system for seeking feedback from people who use the service, their representatives and staff.

A person told us 'It's nice to come somewhere that's like home but not home. It's like a family.'

A relative told us that their family member 'loves it here'.

People told us that they liked coming to Woodview and liked the staff. One individual told us that they had recently had a birthday and had a party with lots of cards, balloons and a cake with candles. We observed that there was a good rapport between people and staff. People were able to name their key worker and said that they were well looked after and enjoyed the various trips out.

The service had policies and procedures in place and staff that we spoke with had a clear understanding of possible signs of abuse and action that would be taken. The service has not had any safeguarding concerns since the home opened in 2000.

Medication administration recording was up to date with no gaps in entries.

People told us that they got on really well with the staff and nobody got cross. We observed that staff were working well together. Staff told us they enjoyed working in the home and they felt well supported and that morale had been good.

Regular unannounced visits had been made by senior managers and we were able to see evidence of visits.