You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Woodley Grange. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 November 2016

This inspection took place on 11 and 13 October 2016 and was unannounced.

Woodley Grange is situated on the outskirts of Romsey. It is made up of an older building which has been refurbished and extended to provide residential care for up to 45 people. At the time of our inspection there were 41 people living at the home. The service specialises in caring for people with memory loss or living with dementia and provides respite care and day care. It does not provide nursing care. The service in arranged into three areas known as the Abbey, Broadlands and Mountbatten units. Each unit has their own communal sitting and dining area. Each room is for single occupancy with most having their own ensuite facilities. The rooms viewed were nicely personalised with people’s own possessions and were well equipped with profiling beds. The service has a hair salon and a large activities room which was being redecorated at the time of our inspection. The secure garden has been professionally designed to provide a safe, secure environment for people living with dementia.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Care plans and other records relating to people’s needs did not always contain sufficient information. This is important to support staff to deliver responsive care.

Staff understood the signs of abuse and neglect and demonstrated a commitment to ensuring people were protected from harm. Overall, staff had a good understanding of people’s risks and how to support them to maintain good health and stay safe

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff worked unsupervised.

Appropriate systems were in place for obtaining, storing and disposal of people’s medicines and improvements were underway to ensure that people received their medicines and topical creams as prescribed.

People received a choice of meals and were supported appropriately to eat and drink.

Staff were supported to carry out their roles and received an induction and on-going training and supervision.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing assistance. Where a person’s ability to consent to living within the home, or to the use of safety monitoring equipment was in doubt, a formal assessment of their capacity was usually undertaken as part of the care planning process. Relevant applications for a DoLS had either been authorised or were awaiting assessment by the local authority.

Staff had developed effective working relationships with a number of healthcare professionals to ensure that people received co-ordinated care, treatment and support.

People were cared for by kind and caring staff who respected their choices and were mindful of their privacy and dignity.

People told us they were able to express their views and to give feedback about the service. They were confident they could raise concerns or complaints and these would be dealt with.

People, their relatives and staff spoke positively about their leadership of the home. Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 November 2016

The service was safe.

Appropriate systems were in place for obtaining, storing and disposal of people’s medicines and improvements were underway to ensure that people received their medicines and topical creams as prescribed.

Staff had a good understanding of risks to people’s health and wellbeing and measures were in place to protect people from risks associated with the environment. People were protected against the risk of abuse.

Sufficient staff were deployed to ensure people’s needs were met in a timely manner.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 November 2016

The service was effective

Staff were supported to carry out their roles and received an induction, on-going training and supervision.

People received a choice of meals and were supported appropriately to eat and drink.

People were supported to access healthcare services when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 November 2016

The service was caring.

People were cared for by kind and caring staff who were mindful of their privacy and dignity.

Relatives told us they were kept well informed and that communication with the home was good.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 9 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s records did not always contain sufficient information about their needs and how these should be met.

People took part in activities of their choice which they enjoyed.

People told us they were able to express their views and to give feedback about the service. They were confident they could raise concerns or complaints and these would be dealt with.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 November 2016

The service was well led.

People, their relatives and staff spoke positively about their leadership of the home.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.