Woodview House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At our last assessment the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment; the ways people’s medicines were managed safely and safe recruitment practises. At this assessment we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

At our last assessment we found there were no processes in place to review accidents and incidents at the service for any patterns or trends. At this assessment we found improvements had been made.

When incidents or accidents occurred, there was evidence the registered manager carried out investigations and implemented measures to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. Minutes from staff meetings evidenced they were used to reflect on where management had identified improvements were required, but also to acknowledge and share good practice and staff achievements.

The registered manager maintained oversight of the service through regular monitoring and reviewing all incidents.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Before people moved into the service, members of the staff team carried out a pre-admission assessment. These assessments ensured the service could meet the person’s needs and support a positive transition from their previous residence. The registered manager told us they had recognised the quality of these assessments was improved when they were carried out by staff who would be actively involved in providing the person’s care and they had changed the process to facilitate this.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

All staff had completed training in safeguarding, and this was refreshed on an annual basis. Staff were aware of the service’s safeguarding policy and procedures and where to access the policy if needed. Staff were able to describe different types of abuse and explained how they would raise the concerns to the appropriate people.

Staff told us they would feel comfortable speaking to the management team about any concerns they may have. This was echoed by people and their relatives who felt confident raising concerns and trusted the management team to act on them.

Where safeguarding incidents had been identified, the registered manager had investigated the incident internally and documented actions taken. Records showed safeguarding concerns were escalated without delay to relevant authorities, including the local safeguarding team and the Care Quality Commission.

Information about how to report safeguarding concerns was displayed around the home.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

At the last assessment we found people’s risk assessments did not always contain up to date information or reflect people’s needs. At this assessment we found the service had made improvements which were effective and risk assessments accurately reflected the needs of people and were regularly reviewed.

The provider had systems in place to identify, assess, and manage risks associated with people’s care and support. Risk assessments were consistent and clear and the guidance staff should follow to mitigate risks was accurately recorded. There were specific, in date, risk assessments in people’s care plans, such as moving and handling and medicines, which staff could readily access.

The registered manager told us they supported a culture of positive risk taking at the service and could give examples of where they supported people to make their own choices and take risks that could improve their quality of life, whilst balancing safety and wellbeing.

Safe environments Score: 3

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The registered manager ensured environmental safety was effectively managed. The service had an allocated maintenance person who oversaw the environmental safety of the service. We saw records of fire safety, legionella checks, and electrical checks were completed on a regular basis. Equipment used by people including wheelchairs, beds and hoisting equipment were also checked regularly. Staff also raised any issues with the maintenance person and they were rectified as quickly as possible.

Routine safety checks were carried out and were within the safe and expected levels, such as monthly water temperatures checks on hot and cold taps, and regular flushing of unused outlets.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

At the last assessment we found safe recruitments practises were not being followed as full employment histories were not being obtained. At this assessment we found this had been addressed and staff were being recruited safely.

The service maintained records of staff training and staff were provided with comprehensive training including for specific conditions such as diabetes and dementia. Where required, this training was refreshed within the recommended timescales.

Where people were funded for additional support, this was consistently provided.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of infections spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

We observed the environment was cleaned throughout the day of our assessment, including people’s bedrooms and communal areas. We observed staff used and had access to supplies of personal protective equipment to help prevent and control the spread of infection. We observed staff practised good hand hygiene principles and hand hygiene was prompted for people at mealtimes. The service had a policy for staff to follow in relation to controlling the spread of infection and we observed staff following it during our visit.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

At the last assessment we found authorisation to administer medicines covertly had not always been obtained. At this assessment we found this had been addressed and where people were administered medicines covertly, the correct authorisations were in place.

At the last assessment we found protocols for the administration of pain-relieving patches were not robust. At this assessment we found these had been strengthened and records showed staff were provided with information about where to administer the patches to ensure different sites were used in rotation. Staff were also checking daily to ensure the patches remained in place.

Medicines were stored appropriately and records showed regular temperature checks were made to ensure they were kept within the recommended range.