You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

We carried out this unannounced inspection of Woodland on 8 August 2017. The last comprehensive inspection took place in 27 July 2016 when we identified two breaches of regulations. Not enough was done to protect people and staff, from identified risks and monitoring records were inconsistently completed. The service sent us an action plan telling us what they were doing to meet the breaches. At this inspection we found people’s risks were being identified and responded to so they were protected. Records to ensure people’s needs were being responded to, were complete and demonstrated how they were being met.

Woodland is part of Cornwall Care and is a care home which offers care and support for up to 38 predominantly older people. At the time of the inspection there were 38 people living at the service. Some of these people were living with dementia. The accommodation is spread across four wings. There are several lounge areas where people can choose to spend their time. There was a large garden to the rear of the building.

On the day of the inspection visit there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the service. We observed people had a good relationship with staff and staff interacted with people in a caring and respectful manner. People told us, “They (staff) are always careful about our privacy and dignity” and “They (staff) are very nice here.”

Details in care plans included the level of risk and how it was going to be managed. This had improved since the previous inspection when there was little evidence of how individual risks were being managed safely and effectively. There were examples of when people were at risk, for example from falls. Guidance for staff contained detailed information on the action staff could take to minimise the risk. All records relating to the care and support of people were complete and provided staff with current information about the needs of the person. This had improved since the previous inspection when gaps were noted in a number of records relating to the care and welfare of people.

Some people told us they thought the levels of staff could be improved on. The registered manager acknowledged there had been a period of instability when agency staff had and were continuing to be used, but far less than earlier in the year. On the day of the inspection there were suitable numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people using the service. There was one agency staff member who had worked at the service on a regular basis and knew people’s needs. Staff told us, “It’s been difficult at times but things have got a lot better. Comments were mixed and included, "The staff are pretty good, although there is never enough of them" and "When I ring my call bell I find that as a rule they respond quite soon.”

People and relatives told us they thought Woodland was a safe place to live and that staff were kind, friendly and treated people well. They told us that the registered manager was always available and approachable. Comments included, “Always there if I need to speak about anything” and “I have every confidence in the manager and staff. There have been some changes but I think they have improved the home.”

Staff completed a thorough recruitment process to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge for their role. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to recognise and report the signs of abuse. They were confident any concerns would be dealt with.

The registered manager used effective and systems to record and report on, accidents and incidents and take action when required.

People's rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were understood and applied correctly. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this p

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

The service was safe. People’s risks were being identified and met.

Action had been taken to ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Staff completed a thorough recruitment process to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge. Staff knew how to recognise and report the signs of abuse.

People were supported with their medicines in a safe way by staff who had been appropriately trained.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

The service was effective. Staff had a good knowledge of each person and how to meet their needs. Staff received on-going training so they had the skills and knowledge to provide effective care to people.

Management and staff understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People saw health professionals when they needed to so their health needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

The service was caring. People who used the service, relatives and healthcare professionals were positive about the service and the way staff treated the people they supported.

Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.

Staff respected people’s wishes and provided care and support in line with those wishes.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

The service was responsive. Records to monitor people’s needs were complete and showed how individual needs were being met.

People received personalised care and support which was responsive to their changing needs.

People were able to take part in a range of group and individual activities of their choice.

Information about how to complain was readily available.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

The service was well-led. There were clear lines of responsibility and accountability at the service.

Quality assurance systems were robust. The service was being maintained.

Staff were well supported by the management team.