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.