You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11, 12 September 2013
Date of Publication: 4 October 2013
Inspection Report published 04 October 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 11 September 2013 and 12 September 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with staff, reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services and talked with commissioners of services. We talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

There were seven people living at the home at the time of our inspection. We were unable to talk to people in detail about their care and welfare. This was because people living at the home had a diagnosis of autism and had communication difficulties. One person we spoke with told us that they liked living at Woodwell and they liked the staff. This person told us about the activities that they enjoyed participating in such as a sports group at the local sports centre, swimming, bowling and dancing.

We also observed that people were involved in activities on the day of our visit. Two of the people living at the home went to a day centre run by the provider, one person was away on holiday and the other four people were supported to go out for a walk. We saw that people were supported to access the community to use the local shops and maintain contact with family.

We spoke with the relatives of three people living at the home. They told us that they were very happy with the service their relative received. Relatives told us that they were pleased with the range of activities people did. They said that communication was excellent between the home and themselves. One relative said that their relative was much more independent during home visits than they were before they lived at Woodwell.

We looked at three people’s care records. These showed that when a specific need was identified care plans were developed to ensure that these needs were met. The care plans were person centred and described individual support. It was clear from reading the care plans that people’s views had been taken into account. Daily records we viewed confirmed that staff provided people with care and support as described in their care plans. This meant people’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We spoke with two members of staff working at the home. Staff had a detailed knowledge of the people they supported. We were told by one member of staff that it was important to view all the people living at the service as individuals. We saw that care plans were reviewed monthly by the person’s key worker. When changes in people’s needs were identified the care plans were updated to reflect these. Formal care plan review meetings occurred every six months and people were invited to attend these meetings along with their relatives and professionals involved in their care and support.

We saw that people had health action plans in place. We saw from records that when staff identified health concerns people were referred to their GP or other health professionals as appropriate. We saw evidence from records that people received annual health checks from their GP.

Records we viewed showed that care plans had been updated following guidance from GP’s and consultants. For example, one person had their fluid intake monitored by the home. This was because they were on a medication that required them to have a fluid intake of at least 2000ml per day. We saw that fluid records were maintained and they showed that the fluid intake of this person was above the daily minimum recommended by the GP. This meant that the service was implementing guidance received from GP’s and consultants.

We saw from records that people attended regular appointments with specialist health professionals to monitor their health conditions. For example we saw that one person who had epilepsy attended regular epilepsy monitoring appointments with a consultant in neurology at a local hospital.

We were told that one person at the home had recently been seen by an occupational therapist (OT) from the local community learning disabilities team (CLDT). This followed a referral from the person’s social worker following a review of this person’s care needs. We were told that the referral was to assess whether an OT input would be appropriate for this person. Staff told us that three meetings had been set up in October for an OT to carry