7 December 2017
During a routine inspection
Woodhouse Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Woodhouse Road accommodates eight people living with learning disabilities and an autistic spectrum disorder. On the day of our inspection seven people were living at the service.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At our last inspection in October 2015, the service was rated 'Good'. At this inspection we found that the service remained 'Good’.
The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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. However, at the time of our inspection the registered manager had left the service to manage a different service within the organisation. A new manager was in place who had submitted their registered manager application, we are monitoring this.
People remained safe because they were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and understood their role and responsibility in protecting them from avoidable harm. Risks in
relation to people's needs including the environment were assessed, planed and monitored. There were sufficient staff employed to support people. People received their prescribed medicines safely. People lived in a clean, hygienic service. Staff supported people effectively during periods of anxiety that affected their mood and behaviour. Accidents and incidents were reported, monitored and reviewed to consider the action required to reduce further reoccurrence.
People continued to receive an effective service because their needs were assessed and understood by staff. Staff received an appropriate induction, ongoing training and supervision that supported them to meet people’s needs effectively. People’s dietary needs had been assessed and planned for and they received a choice of meals and drinks. Systems were in place to share relevant information with other organisations to ensure people’s needs were known and understood. People were supported to access healthcare services and their health needs had been assessed and were monitored. The premise met people’s current needs and discussions had commenced with the landlord about ensuring people’s future needs could be met. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed when decisions were made about people’s care. Applications had been made when required to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards supervisory body. However, improvements were required to ensure when an application had been made they had been received by the supervisory body.
People continued to receive good care. People were involved as fully as possible in their care and support and staff respected their privacy and dignity. Independence was promoted and staff had a good understanding of people’s diverse needs, preferences, routines and personal histories. People were supported to access independent advocacy service when required.
People continued to receive a responsive service. People who used the service had opportunities to contribute to their assessment and reviews of their care and support. People’s support plans focussed on their individual needs, creating a person centred approach in the delivery of care and support. People were supported to achieve their goals and aspirations and lead active and fulfilling lives. People had access to the registered provider’s complaints procedure. People’s end of life wishes had been discussed with them.
The service continued to be well-led. There was an open and transparent culture in the service where people were listened to and staff were valued. Staff spoke positively about the new manager who had a plan of how they wished to improve and develop the service. People who used the service knew who the manager was and were confident they managed the service well. There were systems and processes in place to monitor quality and safety and these were being further developed in some areas.