We carried out a review of the data available to us about Woodside Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Woodside Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following areas of good practice:
¿ A wide range of risk assessments were in place to address the COVID-19 risks associated with every aspect of care to ensure care was able to continue in the safest possible way.
¿ We noted colour coding to separate designated cleaning areas, residents with a blue dot on their bedroom door indicated the person was self isolating. This helped staff to care for them appropriately in line with their self isolating status.
¿ Handovers took place between cleaning staff and these were written up on the provider's messaging system. This ensured cleaning was kept up to date and no area was missed.
¿ The provider used the RESTORE2 tool. The RESTORE2 tool records vital signs to help recognise when a resident may be deteriorating or at risk of deterioration. The provider stored this information with hospital packs which were ready for any resident to take into hospital should they need to be admitted. The hospital pack recorded key information about each resident to ensure hospital staff knew how to meet their needs.
¿ The provider held several fun charity events to boost staff morale.
¿ The home had a bespoke visiting area which was ventilated and heated. It was nicely decorated to help visitors and residents feel as comfortable as possible.
The last inspection of Woodside Lodge took place on 5 and 6 January 2016 and rated the service as good.
Woodside Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Woodside Lodge is a converted property and accommodates up to 21 people who require care and support. When we inspected there were 19 people living in the home. There were two shared rooms in the property and single occupancy rooms of varying sizes. Rooms had ensuite toilet facilities and some had showers facilities.
There was a clearly defined recruitment procedure however we recommended that the provider research best practice in pre-employment checks.
Regular servicing and checks of systems and equipment were undertaken by the provider and the premises were clean. We recommended that a water safety and legionella risk assessment is undertaken by a competent person as per health and safety regulations and that staff attend legionella training relevant to their roles.
The provider committed to completing a full review of the premises and to undertake any outstanding maintenance tasks to ensure that health and safety and infection control standards are maintained until the service has been redeveloped.
Medicines were safely managed and staff asked people for consent before administering medicines.
Pre-admission assessments were completed and a wide range of risk assessments and care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure people’s needs were effectively met.
Staff participated in regular supervisions and were supported by the registered manager who had an open-door approach providing less formal support.
Staff attended training in essential areas annually and accessed an online training system for both mandatory and other courses. The registered manager was qualified to support staff with moving and handling training.
Peoples nutritional needs were met. Menus were provided in different formats and meals were served as per people’s requirements, for example pureed or fortified.
People told us staff were kind and caring and we saw staff interacting positively with people.
Spiritual needs were met and the service had links with the local church who regularly visited.
Care recording was electronic and the provider had sourced a system that could be updated to reflect the changing requirements of the service.
There were CCTV cameras in communal areas to monitor safety and footage was reviewed if there was an accident or incident. Footage had also been used as a learning tool for moving and handling.
The provider had installed several air conditioning units both in communal areas and in some bedrooms to ensure that people were comfortable during the warmer weather.
End of life care plans were created and when possible, people were supported to remain at the home if they wished supported by visiting healthcare professionals.
The registered manager and provider were visible and approachable, staff told us they would approach either if they had concerns about anything.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service delivery.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection carried out by one inspector on 5 and 6 January 2016. We last inspected the home in August 2013 when we found the service was compliant with regulations and the standards required at that time.
There was no registered manager at the home at the time of the inspection, the registered manager having recently ceased working at the home. 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 provider was in the process of recruiting a new manager who was soon to start working at the home.
The home is registered to accommodate 21 people and at the time of inspection 19 people were living there.
Woodside Lodge provided a safe service to people. Staff had been trained in safeguarding adults and were knowledgeable about how to refer any concerns of abuse. The program of update training for new staff was to be taken forward by the new manager.
Risks to people’s health or safety concerning delivery of their care and the physical environment had been assessed with action taken to minimise risk.
Accidents and incidents were monitored and audited to see if there were any trends that could make systems and care delivery safer.
The home employed sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.
Robust recruitment procedures were followed to make sure competent and suitable staff were employed to work at the home.
Medicines were managed safely in the home.
The staff team were well-trained and there were systems in place to make sure staff received training when required. Making sure staff receive update training was to be taken forward by the new manager.
The home was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, with appropriate applications made to the local authority for people at risk of being deprived of their liberty.
People’s consent was gained for how they were cared for and supported.
Staff were supported through one to one supervision and annual appraisals.
People were provided with a good standard of food and their nutritional needs were met.
People were positive about the staff team and the good standards of care provided in the home. People felt their privacy and dignity were respected.
Care planning was effective and up to date, making sure people’s needs were met.
The home provided a programme of activities to keep people meaningfully occupied.
The home had a well-publicised complaints policy and when a complaint was made, these were logged and responded to.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided to people.
There was good leadership of the home and a positive ethos and culture prevailing in the home.
People who lived in the home told us, "I love living here, the staff are so friendly and everything is done for me" and "I really enjoy the garden, it's lovely to get out in the fresh air".
Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.
People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.
There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.
The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.
We observed that the atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed. People received support in a dignified and respectful way.
People who lived in the home were seen listening to music, looking through photograph albums and talking to each other.
We observed that care workers and people living in the home were relaxed with each other and enjoying each others company.
One person we spoke with told us, 'I enjoy living here the staff are always kind and friendly'.
People told us they were consulted and involved in their own care. People who lived in the home said they were treated with dignity and respect by care workers who knew them well and understood their individual needs.
We found that people's care plans were individualised and person focussed. Where possible, people had been involved in the development of their care plan.
People were supported and cared for by suitably qualified and experienced staff.
People's health and medical records were accurate and fit for purpose.