You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

This inspection took place on 10th December 2018 and was unannounced. At our last comprehensive inspection in October 2017 the service was rated 'Requires improvement’.

Woodlands is a care home for older people. The home is registered to accommodate 20 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living at the home.

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. At this home the provider (owner) was the registered manager. He is referred to as the registered manager in this report.

At the last inspection we identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These breaches were in relation to a limited choice of meals available to people, the hot water was above recommended safe temperature and there were no window restrictors to reduce the risk of falls from windows. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in all these areas.

People were positive about the service and the staff who supported them. People told us they liked the staff and that they were treated with dignity and kindness.

Staff treated people with respect and as individuals with different needs and preferences. The care records contained information about how to provide support, what the person liked and disliked, their preferences and interests.

The staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s care needs, significant people and events in their lives, their daily routines and preferences. They also understood the provider’s safeguarding procedures and could explain how they would protect people if they had any concerns.

Risk assessments were in place for a number of areas and were regularly updated. Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of many health conditions.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to care for the number of people living at the home.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People’s views on the service were regularly sought and acted on.

Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the home.

People participated in a range of social activities.

The registered manager and staff ensured everyone was supported to maintain good health.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff had received relevant training and regular medicine audits were taking place.

People were satisfied with the food provided at the home and the support they received in relation to nutrition and hydration.

There was an open and transparent culture and encouragement for people to provide feedback.

People told us they were aware of how to make a complaint and were confident they could express any concerns and these would be addressed.

Staff told us they really enjoyed working for the organisation and spoke very positively about the culture and management of the service. Staff told us that they were encouraged to openly discuss any issues.

People, staff and health and social care professionals spoke highly of the registered manager; they found them to be dedicated, approachable and supportive. The registered manager understood their responsibilities and ensured people, relatives and staff felt able to contribute to the development of the service. Staff were supported to be valued members of the organisation.

The provider’s governance framework ensured quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements were understood and managed. The service learnt and made improvements when things went wrong.

The home appeared clean and maintained and there was a refurbishmen

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

Improvements had been made to maintain the safety of the building.

Staff understood the provider’s safeguarding procedures and could explain how they would protect people if they had any concerns.

The service ensured the proper and safe use of medicines. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

Sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff were deployed to keep people safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

The service was effective.

People received care from staff that were trained to meet their individual needs. Staff felt supported and received on-going training and regular management supervision.

People received the support they needed to maintain good health and wellbeing.

People were supported to eat healthily.

The manager and staff had a good understanding of meeting people’s legal rights and the correct processes were being followed regarding the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

The service was caring.

People told us staff were kind and caring and we observed this to be the case. Staff knew people’s preferences and acted on these.

People and their relatives told us they felt involved in the care planning and delivery and they felt able to raise any issues with staff or the registered manager.

Staff knew people’s background, interests and personal preferences well.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

The service was responsive. People’s needs were assessed. Staff responded to changes in people’s needs. Care plans were up to date and reflected the care and support given. Regular reviews were held to ensure plans were up to date.

Care was planned and delivered to meet the individual needs of people.

There was a complaints procedure in place.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 January 2019

The service was well led.

People, relatives, staff and health and social professionals spoke highly of the registered manager; they found them to be dedicated, approachable and supportive.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities and ensured people, relatives and staff felt able to contribute to the development of the service.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.