• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Woodlands

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

66 Bridle Road, Wollaston, Stourbridge, West Midlands, DY8 4QE (01384) 394851

Provided and run by:
J Davies and Mrs S Shroff

All Inspections

2 and 4 March 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 2 and 4 March 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on the 4 April 2013 the regulations we inspected were met.

Woodlands is registered to provide accommodation and support for 19 older adults with dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 19 people living in the home and 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 (2008) and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living in the home and relatives confirmed they had no concerns with people’s safety. We found that people were happy and staff knew what actions to take where they had concerns about people being kept safe from harm.

We found that the provider did not have the appropriate systems in place to ensure staff received support through regular supervisions, staff meetings and regular up to date training. Training records showed that staff were not receiving training regularly to ensure their skills and knowledge was kept up to date.

We found that the provider was not meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff we spoke with were not sufficiently knowledgeable to ensure where people lacked capacity their human rights would being protected. The provider also took no appropriate action to ensure where people lacked capacity an appropriate assessment was done and advice taken from the supervisory body as to whether people were being restricted and a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard application was needed.

People told us that the meals were good and they enjoyed them, but they did not get a choice of meals. Our observations were that the menu was not displayed in a way to support people to make choices and it was not clear how people were involved in deciding the menu options.

We found that people were not always being encouraged to make decisions about the support they got. People told us how they decided daily when they got up and went to bed and the clothes they wore. But it was unclear how they participated in other elements of the running of the home, through meetings or other forums.

The provider did not take sufficient action to ensure people’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times. We found that bedroom doors did not all lock to offer people privacy and bedroom doors on the top floor of the home had glass panels which allowed people no privacy or dignity. The registered manager told us action would be taken to ensure people views and consent was sort as to how their privacy and dignity would be respected in the future. This would include the glass panels being covered.

The provider had systems in place so people were able to give their views by way of completing a questionnaire. We found no recorded evidence to show that people views were being sought through this process and how the information gained was being used to make improvements to the quality of the service provided.

We found that the provider’s assessment and care planning records did not accurately reflect people’s assessed needs and how they were being met consistently. This meant new staff would not know from people’s records what their needs were or how to meet them.

23 April 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of the inspection, there were 18 people living at the home. We spoke with six people, three staff members and the manager who was also the joint owner.

People received care that that met their needs. One person said, 'You only have to tell them your finger hurts and they call someone to see you.'

Improvements had been made in the way that people were protected from harm.

Arrangements were in place for the safe handling of medicines. One person said, 'They always give me my medication, even when I forget myself.'

Improvements had been made to ensure that systems were in place to identify and address shortfalls. All the people we spoke with were complimentary about the service they received at the home.

Improvements had been made in the way records were maintained. Records were clear, concise and accessible.

23 August 2012

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people. On the day of the inspection visit there were 19 people living at the home. We spoke with seven people, two relatives, two staff, a visiting health professional, and the home manager.

We found that people had limited choices throughout the day. However, people and their relatives told us that they were involved in discussions relating to their care.

We found that people received care from other professionals in a timely manner. We found that all the people we spoke with were happy with the care they received at the home. One person said, 'The staff are very good and meet my needs.'

We found that arrangements were not always in place to ensure that people were safeguarded from abuse.

We found that staff felt supported by senior staff and the manager. We found that staff were supported through appraisals.

We found that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the services. One relative said, 'I think they are providing excellent care, I have no complaints.'

We found that records were not always stored securely and assessable when needed. People's care records were not always accurate and clear.

11 September 2012

During a routine inspection

Prior to the visit, people had told us and the local authority about concerns they had with the care given and the management of the home. The concerns were looked into by the local authority and by us during this visit.

We spoke to five people who live at the home, one relative, four staff and two external professionals. We also observed the care that people receive. People were positive about their experiences of living at the home and the care they received. One person said "If you have to go anywhere you couldn't find a better place".

People told us that they knew how to raise any concerns and were confident they would be listened to.

The home was clean on the day of our visit and a relative said 'It's always clean and tidy and there are no bad smells'. This means that people have a pleasant environment in which to live.

All of the people we spoke to were complimentary about the staff and one person said 'They are good as gold to us, they know what I like'.

People told us that they were happy living at the home and told us that they could ask for anything they wanted.

They told us that the food was marvellous and that they were always offered a second helping.

5 January 2011 and 18 September 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

People said they were happy living there. They said that if they were unwell, staff made sure they saw a doctor and looked after them.

People said the staff were very good and responded to their needs. They said they helped them to stay as independent as they could be, for as long as possible.

They said the food was very good and they looked forward to their meals.

People told us that there was no better home and they would not want to live elsewhere.

People said that the routines of the home were flexible and they could choose what they did and when. They said there were different games to play, if they wanted to and they could have the newspaper of their choice delivered.