• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Frome Care Village

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Styles Hill, Frome, Somerset, BA11 5JR (01373) 473113

Provided and run by:
Alexis Care Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

12 November 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook this focused inspection because of concerns we had received about the premises and equipment. This report only covers our findings in relation to these issues. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Frome care Village on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

This inspection was announced and took place on 12 November 2015.

Frome Care Village is registered to provide nursing care for up to 60 older people. There are two separate units: The Parsonage provides support and nursing care for people living with dementia and Woodlands for people who need nursing care because of physical health needs. At the time of our inspection Woodlands was closed for building and refurbishment work. People who had lived in Woodlands had moved to The Parsonage during the period of work.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We had received concerns from the Health and Safety Executive around improvements needed to ensure people were protected against the risks of Legionella. The provider told us they would complete the necessary works by 24/09/2015. We had also received concerns around window restrictors and the home’s fire risk assessment.

In discussion with the estates manager and registered manager we were able to establish the required work to update storage and use of cold and hot water had been completed as recommended. Work had been undertaken to improve the efficiency of the heating and water systems in the home. Systems were in place to monitor and check the water temperatures and cold water storage so any risk of legionella would be identified and the necessary actions taken to protect people’s health and welfare.

We confirmed checking of window restrictors was undertaken on a monthly basis and there had been a review of the home’s fire risk assessment. Work had been undertaken to make improvements in relation to a fire exit and installation of addition smoke alarm.

16 and 17 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 16 and 17 September 2015 and was unannounced.   

Frome Care Village is registered to provide nursing care for up to 60 older people. There are two separate units: The Parsonage provides support and nursing care for people living with dementia and Woodlands for people who need nursing care because of physical health needs.   At the time of our inspection Woodlands was closed for building and refurbishment work. People who had lived in Woodlands had moved to The Parsonage during the period of work.  

Since our last inspection as part of the improvements made by the service The Parsonage has been divided into four separate and distinct “houses”. Wood house provides personal and nursing care, Wells House provides care for people with early onset dementia, Catherine House and Somerset House provides care and support for people who have later stage dementia.   

There is 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Some people were restricted through the use of equipment such as pressure mats, bed rails and bucket chairs. There was a failure to ensure people’s rights were protected and decisions made for the use of such equipment was in their best interests.

We noted comments made by people who had moved temporarily to The Parsonage about the lack of communication about possible return date and progress of the refurbishment. This reflected a failure by the registered manager and provider to ensure people were fully informed and updated about returning to their accommodation at The Woodlands.

Improvements have been made in the staffing arrangements of the service which has led to a safer and more responsive service. People told us “There are always staff around if I need a hand.” and “The staff are there when I need them.”  

The provider had improved their practice in responding to possible safeguarding incidents and revised their policy so it is clearly stated the responsibilities of staff when they had concerns about possible abuse.   

Staff understood and demonstrated an understanding of what could be considered abuse and told us they would report any concerns to the registered manager or other organisation under whistleblowing arrangements.  

People told us they always received their medicines when they were needed. One person told us “I get my tablets at the right time they make sure I take them as well.” There were the appropriate arrangements for the storage, management and administration of medicines.  

Arrangements were in place to protect people in the event of an emergency and also identified potential risks to people’s health and welfare and how they could be alleviated.  

There had been substantive and significant improvements in the environment of the home including the establishing of “houses” which reflected the particular needs of people living with dementia. All parts of The Parsonage had benefited from on-going redecoration and refurbishment.  

There was a calmer, more relaxed atmosphere in the service with people being “happier” and “calmer”. People were benefiting from this calmer atmosphere through less agitated or distressed behaviour and improved interactions between people and staff.  

People told us they could make choices about their daily routines and how they spent their time. One person said “It is up to me what I do staff respect it is my choice.” Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s right to make their own choices as well as how decisions could be made in people best interest.  

There were inconsistencies in ensuring the effective management of the care needs of people who had diabetes specifically those who were diet controlled. We have recommended the service consults guidance about supporting people who have diabetes.  

People had access to community health services as well as specialist services for people who had complex or specific needs such as those related to nutritional or mobility.    

There was evidence through care plans, daily records and conversations with people and staff how care was responsive to people’s needs. Staff had identified changes in people’s health and made referrals for specialist advice and support.  

Staff received regular one to one supervision and training to ensure they had the necessary skills to provide safe and effective care.  

People told us they found staff “Caring and kind” and “I have lived here some time and never found fault with the care. It is absolutely brilliant.”   A relative told us “Staff are compassionate and considerate.” During our inspection we observed staff supporting and assisting people in a caring and sensitive manner.  

Changes were being made in how activities were being provided. There was increasing focus on individual meaningful activities although there were mixed views from people about the quality of the activities.   

Staff spoke positively about the supportive and open approach of the registered manager. The registered manager was making improvements in ensuring people received person centred care which recognised the importance of staff and people interacting in a valued and empowering way.  

Staff told us how morale had improved with better team working and one staff member told us “There have been a lot of changes they are all for the better.” 

Improvements had been made in the quality assurance arrangements with new care planning arrangements to support quality assurance monitoring. New incident reporting procedures had been put in place and audits had identified small improvement in the number of incidents and falls over a three month period.  

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

17 & 29 December 2014

During a routine inspection

Frome Care Village is a nursing home registered to provide nursing care for up to 60 people. There are two separate units: Parsonage provides support and nursing care for people living with dementia and the Woodlands for people who need nursing care because of physical health needs. At the time of our inspection the Parsonage which is over two floors cared for 13 on the ground floor and 11 on the first the Woodlands cared for 21 people over two floors.

There is a registered manager for the service. 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 our inspection of 21 & 22 January 2014 we had found failures in relation to the environment and as a result we made a requirement for the provider to take action. At our last inspection in June 2014 we continued to have concerns about the suitability and safety of the premises in relation to the Parsonage. We required the provider to take action by 1 November 2014. We also found there was a failure to have an effective quality assurance system.

This unannounced inspection took place on the 17 and 29 December 2014 when we found some improvements had been made to the suitability and safety of the Parsonage. However there remained significant improvements to be made regarding the environment at the Parsonage and some improvements to make sure there was an effective system for the monitoring of the quality of the service. Changes had been made at the Parsonage so it was more suited for people living with dementia. The decorative state of the communal areas on the ground floor had improved as well as corridors and toilets. However there had been limited improvements on the first floor with regards to making it more suited for people living with dementia such as signage and re-decoration which had taken place on the ground floor. There remained substantial areas of the service as well as personal rooms which required decoration and improvement.

The registered manager did not respond to investigating safeguarding concerns in a timely way. There was a failure to review incidents so any learning and need for improvements could be identified.

Staff did not have adequate individual supervision so their performance could be formally reviewed, to give their views about the service and discuss any concerns about their role in ensuring an effective and caring service.

People told us they felt safe however some people said there were not sufficient staff so they did not always get the care at the time it was needed. People were treated with respect and their privacy was respected however there was not always consistent good practice from staff in making sure people’s dignity and confidentiality was upheld.

 There were no arrangements for staff to respond in a timely manner, monitor and support people if they were unable to use call bell equipment. There was not the necessary equipment i.e. sufficient call bell units available to ensure people could call for assistance when it was required. 

Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in identifying possible abuse and reporting any concerns. However, there was a failure to take the necessary action to ensure people were protected following incidents of challenging behaviour from other people in the service.

People did not always feel able to voice their view or make a complaint and feel they would be listened to. However the service had responded in a positive way to concerns from a relative about the quality of care. People told us they found staff caring and kind and visitors were made to feel welcome however we found some aspects of how people were supported or assisted with their care was not always caring or have respect for confidentiality.

There were arrangements for the administering of medicines however some improvements were needed in monitoring the storage arrangements and ensuring the temperature of storage areas was at the required level.

People were confident about the skills of staff. Staff had the opportunity to undertake a range of training to provide them with the skills they needed to meet people’s care needs effectively. However they did not have the training, knowledge and skills about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) so they could make informed decisions about protecting the care and welfare of people using the service. The records relating to decisions made on behalf of people about their health and welfare did not always ensure people’s rights were protected and best practice was upheld.

People had access to community health services and specialists in order to meet their health needs effectively. There were good arrangements to make sure people’s nutritional needs were met and any concerns were referred to other professionals for support and guidance. However the service needs to ensure people on the Parsonage are enabled to make an informed choice, as far as they are able to, about their meals.

There was information about how staff could support people in a person centred way and have an understanding of people’s lifestyle, routines and preferences. Staff showed a good understanding of how to respond professionally. Respecting the person where their behaviour was repetitive or challenging to staff and the individual did not always understand or appreciate how they behaved because of the impact of their dementia.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

5, 6, 10 June 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service caring?

We found the service caring in how people were treated with respect and dignity by staff. However the poor environment on the Parsonage did not reflect a caring service. People we spoke with told us staff were friendly and caring. One person living in the home told us, 'I am happy here and they look after me really well'. Another person told us 'The staff are all really nice and they know what I need'. A relative told us "I can honestly say you cannot fault the care. It's the building they need to sort out". Another relative said how they found the environment "needs improving".

We observed staff supported and assisted people with tasks such as having their meal in a supportive and sensitive manner. We saw staff responded to people's at times agitated and distressed behaviour in a professional and supportive manner. We heard people being given choices and people told us staff were accepting of their choices. One person told us "I stay in my room most of the time, it's what suits me and staff understand that is what I chose and want".

Is the service responsive?

From our observation, talking with people and evidence, such as care plans, we found the service to be responsive to people's care needs. People told us they were able to exercise choice in their daily routines and staff were flexible to their needs. There had been improvement in management of people's nutritional and dietary needs. Staff provided appropriate care where people had pressure wounds specifically in relation to re-positioning of people who remained in bed. This alleviated the risk of people developing pressure wounds or their health deteriorating.

Is the service safe?

From what we observed, what people and staff told us and evidence such as care plans we found the service to be safe and people's health and welfare were protected. But we remained concerned about the safety of the home's practice in giving some medicines covertly. People told us they felt safe in the home and had confidence in the staff ability to meet their needs. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people safely. Staff had a good understanding of one individual's behaviour and how to support this person in a safe manner whilst ensuring they received appropriate care. There were risk assessments in place to support people to maximise their independence and respond professionally to care needs and behaviour which could cause individuals anxiety or distress.

The service had arrangements in place to protect the safety and welfare of people who lacked capacity. The service acted professionally and within legal requirements where people's liberty may be restricted. Staff had an understanding of their responsibilities in reporting any concerns about possible abuse within the service and their rights under whistle blowing.

There had been improvement in ensuring risk of infections and cross infection were reduced. The cleaning of equipment and general cleanliness of the home had improved. New systems had been put in place to manage the cleaning of the home.

Arrangements for the safe management and administration of medicines had substantively improved following the action we took following our previous inspection. The provider had acted to address the improvements needed to ensure the safety of people. However they had not addressed the use of covert medicines. People's health and welfare remained potentially at risk because of the home's practice in giving medicines covertly. Following our inspection we asked the provider to confirm they had taken the necessary action to meet the action we had originally taken in relation to this practice in the home. They subsequently confirmed the arrangements for giving of medicines covertly had been approved as safe and effective by a clinical practitioners.

As part of our action from the previous inspection the provider needed to undertake repairs and updating to the premises. At the start of this inspection these works had not been undertaken which potentially placed people's health and welfare at risk. The provider was given the three days of our inspection to complete the work and did so. Therefore improvements had been made but only after we had asked they be undertaken at our inspection.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager was in the process of looking at applications for Deprivation of Liberty. This followed changes in the arrangements for when approval for any deprivation of liberty needs to be in place. People's rights were therefore properly recognised, respected and promoted.

Is the service effective?

The service in relation to the provision of care and support to people living with dementia was not effective in failing to have a suitable layout and design. We had taken action following our last inspection in relation to the effectiveness of the Parsonage in providing a suitable environment for people living with dementia. The provider had not fully met the requirements we had made and this meant the environment continued to fail to meet the needs of people living with dementia.

The service had improved and was providing an effective service to people who had complex needs. Specifically pressure wound care, meeting nutritional needs and ensuring the required staff training was in place.

Is the service well led?

There is currently no registered manager of this service however the manager has made an application to be registered with CQC.

There were some aspects of this service which reflected a well led service but there were concerns specifically at the lack of action to the requirements we had made of the provider and how the service undertook their quality assurance. Staff were positive about the management of the home in providing support and leadership. Staff told us there had been improvements and new training had been put in place so staff felt confident about their role and responsibilities.

There had been improvements in the monitoring and auditing of the quality of the service. However there remained failures to identify areas for improvement and take the necessary action. There was clearly a system in place to audit specific areas of care but these were not always proactive and undertaken in a timely manner. Some shortfalls were also evident in the quality monitoring system in place for the service. Improvements we had identified had not been independently identified as part of the home's quality monitoring system.

21, 22, 29 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People gave us mixed responses about care and treatment. One person told us they had 'nothing but praise for the staff.' However another person told us they had to wait a long time for their bell to be answered, saying 'it's not fair you have to wait so long.'

The provider was not ensuring all people were treated with privacy and dignity. Interaction with people was limited. When staff did interact it was in a brief way and they did not respect or react appropriately to what people were saying.

The provider was not ensuring people's care and treatment was effectively planned and delivered in a way to meet their individual needs. This included people at risk of pressure ulceration, people with hydration needs and people with continence needs. Some staff were not aware of all their responsibilities for safeguarding vulnerable people.

We found systems to ensure hygiene and a well maintained home environment were not effective. Some parts of the home were odorous, certain equipment was not clean and maintenance issues were not effectively addressed.

The systems for administration of medicines were not being consistently followed, so the provider could not be assured all people received their prescribed medication.

The provider's systems for auditing the quality of services provided were not robust so they could not be assured all relevant actions were taken to protect people from risks of inappropriate or unsafe care, including risks to health and safety.

22 October 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We performed this inspection because of information we had received from a range of sources relating to management of medicines and staff training and support in relation to people's clinical care.

We saw registered nurses assisted people in taking their medication in a kindly and supportive way. Staff confirmed they had been trained in areas relating to meeting people's care needs, such as safe moving and handling of people.

We found the provider had not ensured their medicines trolleys could be securely locked. Some medicines administration records had not been completed to show people had appropriately been administered their prescribed medication. Where people were receiving medicines in a covert manner, this was not supported by all necessary information. Some records did not show how the prescriber's instructions were being followed.

The home could not show they had ensured staff were trained in meeting people's clinical needs, including the management and care of people who had wounds. Assessments of whether the home could meet a person's needs prior to admission did not consider if staff had the relevant clinical skills needed to meet their needs.

12, 24 September 2013

During a routine inspection

People made varying comments about the care they received. One person told us staff were 'pretty good at coming' when they rang their call bell. A person told us the new manager 'seems to be righting things'. We saw staff were kindly and supportive to people who had behaviours associated with dementia. We saw frail people who remained in bed all or most of the time had tidily brushed hair and clean fingernails.

We found staff were not consistently supporting people in their dignity and independence. We saw one person who remained for an hour in a stained clothes protector, before it was changed.

The home did not ensure all people had their individual needs assessed, planned for and met. National guidelines were not consistently followed. This related in particular to ensuring the risks of pressure ulceration and falls were reduced.

We found were insufficient directions in care plans and a lack of full monitoring systems relating to the use of restraint where people showed chellenging behaviours.

We saw the home was not following guidelines on prevention of spread of infection and hygiene. This included a lack of cleanliness in parts of the home and equipment and furnishings.

The home was not ensuring the premises were suitable and risks to people from the home environment reduced. They also did not ensue effective systems for maintenance of parts of the buildings.

19 October 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People living in The Parsonage were not able to share their views due to living with dementia. We visited at lunchtime and observed care and support given to people in The Parsonage. We saw around half the people living at the home were in the downstairs lounge. People were sitting either at the dining table or eating sitting in chairs with small tables. Staff told us where people ate was their own choice and they were being helped by staff with sensitivity and kindness. We met and talked with one person's close relative. They said the home did appear to "struggle with enough staff at busier times" but "staff are kind" and "want the best for people".

We met and talked with four people living in Woodlands who said staff were kind, but busy. They said they were well supported and were happy living at the home. We heard people sometimes had to wait for support at busy times of the day. People also said there had been "quite a few staff away ill" and "there's too much pressure on the nurse".

We found the home had been short-staffed recently due to sickness absence. The home had a protocol for staffing the home with a skill mix of staff but was on occasion unable to provide full cover for unplanned absence. A system for assessing people's needs in relation to staff numbers and skill mix was being developed but not yet fully implemented. The simple ratio of people to staff model being used was working adequately when we visited and people's needs were being met.

11 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We visited Frome Care Village on 11 July 2012 and spent the day at the service. The home was run in two buildings that operated slightly differently from one another and with different staff teams.

One building, 'Woodlands', accommodated up to 24 people, some of whom had physical needs and/or may have been living with a dementia. The other building, 'The Parsonage', accommodated up to 36 people who came to the home for support when living with a dementia or other enduring mental health needs. We inspected both parts of the home and met people living there and some friends and relatives who were visiting. We talked with several members of the staff team in both locations. This included maintenance staff, nursing staff, domestic workers, care staff, kitchen staff, and representatives from the provider.

Most people we met at Woodlands were able to share their experience of the home. We were told: 'staff are excellent. They have been wonderful'. Another person said: 'it's a nice place. All the staff are friendly'. A relative told us: 'staff work very hard. The food is good and the cakes are particularly good'. People living in The Parsonage were less able to share their experiences, but we spent time observing care and talking with staff and visitors. We spoke with relatives of two people living at The Parsonage. They told us they were satisfied with the care and support provided. Examples of their comments were: "excellent care. Staff are lovely and very attentive". "Any problems are dealt with". "The food is very good and my relative is well looked after". "The d'cor isn't great, but the care is".

In The Parsonage we used the observational tool SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We observed care of staff delivered with patience, kindness and warmth. People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity maintained. Care records were good, although there was not space in the written record to allow for easy updates to people's changing needs. This was something that had already been recognised by the provider and a new format was being trialled.

People were having their nutrition and hydration needs met. The home was clean and tidy in most areas and hygienically maintained, although there were some areas which had unpleasant odours. The home was safe and fit for purpose, although some of the corridors were plain and looked very similar. This made it more difficult to move around and find familiar themes to help with orientation. People's bedrooms were clean and well decorated, although some carpets were hard to keep clean. People were able to personalise their rooms with their own pictures and small items of furniture. People were also able to live as they wished and staff recognised people's need to be independent in making decisions.

Most areas of the grounds were tidy and well maintained although some small areas were unkempt. These were acknowledged and some addressed by the maintenance staff during our visit.

We found staff to be knowledgeable in many areas but needed to demonstrate training at induction, particularly in safeguarding vulnerable adults. We found some confusion among staff around roles and responsibilities in terms of housekeeping, specifically around changing bed linen. Records at the home were clear and maintained but there were some areas that needed attention and bringing up to date with the latest information.

The Parsonage was well staffed on the day of our visit and staff were able to meet people's needs. Woodlands was understaffed due to one member of the care team not arriving for work on the morning of our visit. A few people we spoke with said they felt that staff were 'caring' but 'they are stretched too thinly', or 'I have to wait so long for anything'. One relative said staff do come when asked but the relative came each day to help their relative to eat lunch as otherwise 'the food goes cold as there's not enough staff to help'. Another person said they had to wait too long for personal care. We also had a letter from a family which told us their concerns about staffing levels.

The provider sent us more information about its staffing and needs analysis. The provider told us it was developing a dependency tool. This will enable staff to judge and react more appropriately to changes in people's needs and roster enough staff to safely meet people's needs.

Given we had a number of concerns around staffing we asked the manager for an analysis of people's needs and risks to demonstrate how the provider had a safe level of staff. This analysis had not been done for the people living at the home when we visited. We have asked the provider to address this area of concern.

5 December 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the last inspection on 10 March 2011 we had concerns about five of the essentiall standards of quality and safety at Frome Care Village. We were concerned that people were not able to make choices about the food they ate. If they were frail or unwell they were at risk of dehydration because systems of monitoring the fluids they had taken were not sufficiently robust.

The arrangements for managing and monitoring infection control were not sufficient and cleaning routines needed to be improved.

People usually received appropriate care and support however dementia care was not sufficiently personalised.

People had individual care records however some parts of the records were not fully complete or accurate.

Our concerns were about the Parsonage unit of the home where care is provided for people living with dementia.

When we visited in December 2011 to follow up on improvements we found that many people were unable to express an opinion about the care they received. We saw people in their own bedrooms and in the sitting and dining rooms who appeared restful, clean and relaxed. We saw that some people dozed in their chairs or rested in bed for long periods of time.

Records showed that people had regular personal care. Some people looked in need of additional grooming assistance. The home does not currently have the services of a hairdresser.

We saw records that indicated people at risk of pressure damage were regularly assisted to change position in bed. We saw they were supplied with pressure relieving mattresses and many had profiling beds to assist with sitting up in bed or manual handling by staff. One person had however recently developed pressure damage in the home and had been admitted to hospital. We saw records that indicated that the person had had their position changed and that as their condition worsened they were nursed in bed.

At lunch time we saw people were shown a choice of home cooked meals. Staff were aware of who needed additional support or encouragement to eat or drink and acted on this knowledge.

We saw that staff were pleasant and cheerful and were able to talk about people's individual needs. The nurse in charge told us of the ways in which they had maintained and improved the health of two very frail people in the home.

10 March 2011

During a routine inspection

People who spoke to us said that staff treated them with respect and were very kind. We saw that people resting in bed looked peaceful and well cared for. We spoke to a number of people in the home and they said that they were happy and that the care was 'very good'.

We observed that care was always carried out behind closed doors and staff knocked before entering rooms.

People told us that generally the food was 'very good.' One person told us that the chef would try to provide their favourite food 'as a treat.' Another person told us that food was' always good and smelt lovely.'

Many people in the home were unable to express an opinion about the care they received. We spent time observing care practices and noted that staff were pleasant and cheerful with the residents and treated them with courtesy and in a caring way.

We spoke to staff who were able to tell us about the needs of people they were caring for. All people in the home have their medication administered registered nurses. We were told that the GP regularly carries out reviews of medication with people to ensure the dosage and type of prescription is still appropriate.

The Parsonage has been adapted from a Victorian house to provide care for 36 people with dementia. The building is divided into two areas by the stairs with those people who have the most complex nursing needs being upstairs. People remain upstairs to eat their meals and spend their time in their rooms or in the communal lounge. There is a lift and staff also use the steep stairs with a secure key pad door at the top and secure gate at the bottom and top. There is little evidence that the environment has been adapted with the needs of people living with dementia in mind. For example there are no pictorial indications on bedroom doors to assist orientation. There is little about the environment that is stimulating or of interest to people. The upstairs communal lounge has high windows and the chairs are arranged around the outside of the room. We were told that people can access a garden from the upper floor which we did not see during our visit.

Staff acknowledged that the layout of the building was 'not ideal for keeping track of people or for aiding them to find their way around.'

Woodlands was built in 2000 and people live in an environment that is of modern design, in good decorative order and is well maintained. People spoke positively about the environment and enjoyed being able to open the French doors of their rooms in the summer.