Woodlands Care 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 the last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

There were systems in place to investigate any incidents which occurred within the service. Individual accident forms were completed with details about what happened and any immediate actions taken. Trends analysis was completed to ensure any re-occurring themes could be captured.

People told us that when any incidents happened, including falls that appropriate action was taken. One relative said to us, “We couldn't cope at home anymore because I couldn't keep my husband safe. He would fall sometimes. Moving here has taken the worry away from me and we can stay together. The staff manage him well. I hold his hand but the staff do that as well. He is always safe.”

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.

Records showed information about people was available and shared with health care services when needed. For example, ‘hospital passports’ (used to provide an overview of people’s health needs) were used which included key information about people’s health conditions. Hospital discharge paperwork was included with people’s care planning information to ensure safe transitions.

The registered manager explained they shared information with other providers when people moved between services to help new providers understand the person’s care needs. People’s care plans showed people received support from a wide range of other health professionals including speech and language therapy, dieticians, district nurses and GP’s.

People who used the service and their relatives said the service was safe. One person said, “I moved here to be safe and that is what I got. The staff are supportive and very kind. I am very lucky. All my personal needs are met. My prescriptions are provided for me so I don't worry.” A relative added, “I can go home from here and know my mum is as safe as she can be. That is such a weight of my shoulders. It's the staff here and the way they treat my mum that gives me the reassurance she is safe.”

There was a safeguarding policy and procedure in place which was in date and provided an overview about what people could do if they experienced any abuse. A safeguarding log was maintained, with details about any incidents reported to the local authority for further review. Information about how to report safeguarding concerns was also displayed in the main reception area of the home.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns. A member of staff said, “Altercations between people could be a safeguarding concern, or if a person was not being checked when they should be and they had a fall.”

Deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) applications were made to the local authority as required and the registered manager kept records about when these needed to be updated. Staff had completed training and understood why the legislation was required.

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.

People who used the service had individual risk assessments in place relating to the care and support they received. Where any risks were identified, control measures were detailed about how these needed to be managed. These included risks relating to choking, moving and handling, waterlow (for skin) and falls. Personal emergency evacuation plans were also in place for each person.

People who used the service and relatives were involved in making decision about how to manage risks where possible and we saw care delivery was reflective of the care people required. For example, we saw people were provided with the correct consistency of diet if they were at risk of choking. Where people were at risk of falls, appropriate equipment was available for people such as walking sticks and frames.

People were referred to other agencies such as the falls and dietician services for further support and advice if needed. A relative said to us, “Mum has to be moved with a hoist and I have seen it in use. She is moved around with real care and kindness. My mum is always taken to the toilet and never left, although she has a pad on. This keeps her skin in good condition.”

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

There were regular visual checks of the environment to make sure it was safe and free from hazards. Essential servicing had taken place such as the maintenance of gas, water and electricity, although at the time of the inspection additional work was required to the electrical system to ensure it was safe. The registered manager had arranged for this work to be completed and gave us assurances they would update us when this was completed.

Regular checks and maintenance were carried out on fire-fighting equipment. Staff attended fire training and fire drills to ensure they were competent they knew what to do in the event of a fire.

There was a garden with a patio area where people could spend time, although we were told this was mainly used in the summer. Internal doors were key padded, to help keep people safe, although staff and people who knew how to use the door could open these and access the lift using a key fob. Audits of the environment were carried out at both service and provider level.

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.

Staffing rotas were in place and demonstrated how many staff were available to care for people. The feedback we received from people who used the service, staff and relatives was that staffing levels were sufficient. One relative said to us, “From the first few days we knew mum was going to be safe and well cared for. She does need a lot of support and she gets it. There are always staff available when they are needed.” A member of staff also said, “We have recruited a lot of staff recently and we also have bank staff available. I feel we have enough to meet people’s needs currently.”

Staff were recruited safely, with appropriate pre-employment checks carried out before staff started working with the service which included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff had opportunities to learn, and any poor performance was managed appropriately.

Staff told us they received enough training to support them in their role. Staff supervisions and appraisals took place where staff could discuss their work in a confidential way. A member of staff told us, “We have lots of training and Harbour Healthcare are really on the ball with it.”

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

We found the home to be clean, tidy and observed domestic staff carrying out their work during the assessment. Toilets and bathrooms were equipped with appropriate hand hygiene facilities such as paper towels, liquid soap and foot operated pedal bins. Hand sanitiser was available in the home and posters were displayed to encourage compliance.

There was an up-to-date policy on the control of infection, prevention and control (IPC) which staff could refer to if needed. Staff were trained in IPC and had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) which we saw being used during the inspection.

Nobody raised any concerns with us about the cleanliness of the home during our inspection. One relative told us, “Mum’s room is clean and always fresh. I don't worry about anything really. The home are brilliant.”

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.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation regarding management of medication. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

Medicine administration records, including those for Controlled Drugs, showed people received their medicines as prescribed. People who had been prescribed medicines on a when required basis had written plans in place. However some were missing essential information to inform the care staff on how and when it was appropriate to administer these medicines. We provided this feedback the registered manager who arranged for these to be put in place.

A system was in place for recording where on the body skin patches containing analgesic medicines were being applied. These records were used to plan the rotation of the patches around the body to reduce the risk of side effects occurring.

When people were refusing their medicines, their mental capacity was assessed, recorded and they were supported appropriately. Information was available on how to prepare and administered these medicines which had been checked by an appropriate healthcare professional. All medicines were stored securely and at the correct temperature.

Staff that administered medicines had completed safe management of medicines training and had undergone an assessment to check their competency to administer medicines safely.