You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 May 2017

We inspected Woodside Farm House on the 13 and 18 April 2017, the inspection was unannounced. Woodside Farm House is a care home for up to eight people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection seven people were living there. Two people were living in self contained flats at the rear of the property and the rest lived in the main house. Woodside farm House is part of the Potens group, a national provider of health & social care support services for children and adults with disabilities and complex needs.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

People told us they felt safe living at Woodside Farm House and they liked the staff. Relatives also told us they felt people were well cared for and safe. This view was echoed by the health and social care professionals we spoke with. Staff knew how to help protect people if they suspected they were at risk of abuse or harm. The service kept people’s personal monies for them and accurate records of all expenditures. Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed. Staff knew how to minimise risks in order to help keep people safe from harm or injury.

Some people could become distressed or anxious at times and found this difficult to cope with. When they were particularly anxious they could act in a way which could put themselves or others at risk of harm. Staff were aware of how to support people appropriately at these times to help keep them safe and well.

There were sufficient numbers levels of staff to meet people's needs. Staff were deployed effectively across the service to help ensure all people’s needs were met quickly. Rotas were flexible to enable people to take part in activities which fell outside of normal shift patterns.

People received their medicines appropriately and as prescribed. Systems for recording the administration and stock of medicines held at the service were not robust. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People were assessed in line with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) as set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). DoLS provide legal protection for vulnerable people who are, or may become deprived of their liberty. The MCA provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time. When people are assessed as not having the capacity to make a decision, a best interest decision is made involving people who know the person well and other professionals when appropriate. Records showed applications for DoLS were being made appropriately and some people had DoLS authorisations in place. 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 practice.

Staff demonstrated an enthusiasm for their work and a genuine fondness for the people they supported. They spoke of people positively and emphasised their attributes and qualities when describing people to us. One person was going through a particularly difficult time and staff were sympathetic and understanding towards them and displayed a concern for their well-being.

People were supported according to their individual needs and preferences. Although people sometimes liked to spend time with each other they also enjoyed taking part in individual activities to suit their own pace. Staff had access to four vehicles and were able to plan people’s days to reflect their interests. Some people were able to use public transport in order to access the l

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 May 2017

The service remains Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 May 2017

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 May 2017

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 May 2017

The service remains Good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 May 2017

The service remains Good.