You are here

Archived: Goodwins Residential Care Home Good


Inspection carried out on 17 September 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 17 September 2015 and was Unannounced.

The home was previously inspected in May 2014 and was compliant in all areas.

The home provides support to one person and there was a registered manager in place. 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.

Goodwins provides accommodation and personal care for one person. The registered manager is the sole member of staff in the home.

The home is situated near Wakefield town centre with easy access to public transport and local amenities.

The person had their own bedroom with access to a bathroom, lounge, kitchen and garden.

Relatives we spoke with told us they felt their relative was safe living at Goodwins.

The registered manager was able to identify risk and had a good knowledge of what may constitute abuse or neglect.

Although the registered manager had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, they did not carry out capacity assessments. They told us they had requested an assessment from the local authority

The person was supported by a registered manager who knew them well and had the appropriate skills and knowledge to carry out their role.

Interaction between the person who lived in the home and the registered manager was warm and respectful.

Inspection carried out on 30 May 2014

During a routine inspection

The Goodwins Residential Care Home was a small family run home. There was one person who used the service at the time of our inspection.

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 safe?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found -

Is the service safe?

There was one person who used the service at the time of our inspection. We looked at this person�s care record. They had a care plan and risk assessment which covered their needs. We saw monthly reviews of the care plans had taken place. These reviews helped in monitoring whether care records were up to date and reflected people�s current needs so that any necessary actions could be identified at an early stage.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with one member of staff who explained how they involved the person in decisions about their care. For example, by asking the person what they wanted and showing them options, when required.

We observed the person was able to get up when they wished. We heard them being offered choices, such as what they would like to eat for breakfast.

It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the person�s care and support needs.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting the person who used the service. The person was able to do things at their own pace and was not rushed.

A communications diary was used to record the day to day activities and social engagement of the person who used the service. We saw the person took part in a variety of activities and outings. The person was going on holiday with the manager and her family. The person was excited and happy about going away.

Is the service responsive?

The person�s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. We saw the person�s care plan and risk assessments had been kept up to date.

The person had a service user guide in their room. This included information regarding the complaints system. The provider may find it useful to note that the complaints policy was not available in a format which met the person�s needs, such as an easy read report.

Is the service well-led?

The residential home was a small family run home. We found the environment was clean, tidy and homely. There was one person who used the service at the time of our inspection. The systems assessing and monitoring the service were therefore informal. We saw care records were reviewed monthly and updated as appropriate.

We saw feedback questionnaires were available in order to obtain people�s views about the quality of service. In practice we were informed that feedback was obtained on a day to day basis through asking the person who used the service.

The provider may find it useful to note that we found some of the policies were out of date and referred to obsolete government agencies and legislation. For example, the complaints policy and �service user guide� referred to the �National Standards Commission� and did not inform of a person�s right to contact the Local Government Ombudsman.

Inspection carried out on 26 November 2013

During a routine inspection

The environment in which people lived promoted their privacy and dignity and supported their rights to choose and retain a level of independence. We spoke to one person who showed us his room and we observed that the room was personalised in a way that reflected his tastes and interests.

Only one person lived at the home at the time of our visit. We had difficulty communicating with the person who used the service although we were able to understand some of their comments. We were able to observe their behaviour and interaction with staff.

The home was warm and welcoming. The focus in the home was very much about providing person centred care to suit the needs and preferences of the person who used the service. This was recorded in the care plan and there was evidence of the person being involved in the wider family unit with photographs of holidays and days out with family members.

We looked at the care plan, observed the care of the person who used the service and spoke to staff.

We saw that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people�s safety and welfare. We observed that staff provided support and engaged in a positive way with the person who lived at the home.

We saw that the care record recorded information on the person�s needs, abilities and likes and dislikes. In addition there was information on risk assessments being carried out which covered areas such as moving and handling, nutrition, mobility and behaviour.

We saw information on referrals being made to healthcare professionals. The person who used the service had suffered a stroke earlier in the year and there was information on involvement from hospital consultants, GPs and physiotherapists. One member of staff said that they had supported the person to regain their mobility by doing regular exercises with them. It was observed that the person had made a full recovery from their illness.

We spoke with the registered provider who demonstrated a good understanding about their responsibilities if abuse was suspected, and how they would respond to it. We saw that the home had safeguarding policies and complaints procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse.

We spoke to the registered manager about staffing levels in the home. The registered manager said that she was responsible for all of the day to day care provision for the person who used the service

The registered provider lived on the premises so was always available and accessible. The focus of the home was about enabling the person who used the service to achieve the best quality of life they could within a homely family environment.

We observed the provider providing care to the person who used the service. The provider demonstrated a caring, patient and enabling approach to providing care that met the needs of the person.

Inspection carried out on 19 December 2012

During a routine inspection

People who used the service could not communicate clearly so we observed staff providing support and we spoke with staff about the people who use the service. We spoke with the relatives of people who used the service. This gave us assurances that staff knew the needs of people and knew how to deliver the care and support effectively.

Our observations of the service showed that care staff spoke with and interacted with people who used the service in a patient and pleasant manner. Care staff supported people in a sensitive way using differing methods of communication to ensure that people understood what was going to happen.

The people who used the service appeared happy and comfortable with the staff and their family in their interactions with them.

Relatives of people we spoke with during our visit were very satisfied with the care and activities within the service. They told us the care was very good and the place was clean. They said �I could not wish for them to be anywhere else,� and that the people who use the service �Have never been happier.

Inspection carried out on 12 January 2012

During a routine inspection

Two people were living at the home at the time of our visit. We had difficult in communicating with one of the people although we were able to understand some of their comments. We were also to observe their behaviour and interaction with staff.

Both people said they could choose what to do with their time. They are able to have time by themselves in private if they so wish to do so. Both people said that their views and preferences are respected and acted on.

Both people said they are very satisfied with the care and support provided.

The people spoken with said they have never had any concerns during their time at the home.

People told us �Staff help out with anything I need� and �I like being here.�

The people spoken with told us they have been asked for their opinions about such things as the meals, sleep preferences and their hobbies and interests.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)