We carried out a review of the data available to us about Woodlands Residential Home for Ladies on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Woodlands Residential Home for Ladies, you can give feedback on this service.
Woodlands Residential Home for Ladies provides accommodation, care and support for up to 23 women. The home is arranged over two floors and at the time of the inspection there were 14 people living in the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and their privacy and dignity respected. People and their relatives described positive relationships with the staff and management team. People were encouraged and enabled to pursue their hobbies and participate in activities of their choice. There was a welcoming atmosphere in the home.
Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s individual needs and how to meet them. They were aware of risks to people’s safety and knew how to respond appropriately through safeguarding processes. People had access to healthcare services and appropriate referrals made when their needs changed. People’s care records were personalised, and informed staff of the care and support required.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
Staff deployment and organisation across the home was effectively managed. Staff were safely recruited, felt supported by the registered manager and enjoyed their job. The training was relevant to meet people’s needs and they were encouraged to professionally develop. The home was clean and hygienic throughout and safe management of medicines was in place.
An extensive programme of building works was underway to improve the environment for the people who lived there. This was being effectively managed to minimise disruption to the home. A formal complaints process was in place. Feedback from people, relatives and the staff were sought, and opportunities taken to improve the home.
There was visible leadership in the home. The registered manager and provider had good oversight of the home. They were committed to providing person-centred care that focused on each individual and enhanced their life. People knew them and were comfortable speaking to them.
Quality assurance and risk management systems to independently identify issues or to improve the home were in place which supported effective governance and oversight arrangements. The registered manager and provider used formal and informal ways to gather people’s feedback and used this to develop the home.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 13 April 2013).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
During our last inspection in March 2016 we identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We told the provider to submit an action plan to us to let us know how they intended to address the concerns we raised. At this inspection we found that the provider had acted on these concerns and made improvements to ensure that they were consistently delivering a high standard of care and support.
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.
The management team included a director who represented the provider who worked alongside the registered manager on a daily basis.
People were at the heart of the service and received care that was personalised to them and met their needs and wishes. People told us how staff went the extra mile to make sure that they were happy. Staff were exceptionally compassionate, attentive and caring in their interactions with people.
Feedback from people and relatives about the staff and management team was consistent and extremely positive. The atmosphere in the service was warm and welcoming and there was a strong person centred culture which promoted the importance of supporting people to express their views and understand their wishes. This empowered people to lead their lives as they chose.
Procedures were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to and were very clear that they would have no hesitation in reporting concerns. They were confident that these would be dealt with appropriately.
People presented as relaxed and at ease in their surroundings and told us that they felt safe. Staff knew how to minimise risks and provide people with safe care. Procedures and processes provided guidance to staff on how to ensure the safety of the people who used the service.
People, relatives and others told us how staff showed empathy and understanding. Staff were interested in people’s lives and knew them very well. They understood people’s preferred routines, likes and dislikes and what mattered to them. People told us that they felt that their choices, independence, privacy and dignity was promoted and respected.
People were provided with personalised care and support which was planned to meet their individual needs. People felt staff listened to what they said and their views were important when their care was planned and reviewed.
The management team and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner. People were prompted, encouraged and reassured as they took their medicines and given the time they needed.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were well trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Recruitment processes checked the suitability of staff to work in the service.
People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. Professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed. People were offered meals that were suitable for their individual dietary needs and met their preferences.
People were supported to see, when needed, health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. The service proactively engaged with these professionals and acted on their recommendations and guidance in people’s best interests.
There was an open and transparent culture in the service. A complaints procedure was in place. People’s comments, concerns and complaints were listened to and addressed in a timely manner. People, relatives, visitors and staff were confident that any concerns raised would be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately by the management team.
The management team had a holistic approach and had clear oversight of how the service was meeting people’s physical, emotional and social needs. They set a high standard and led by example. They were continuing to improve on their auditing systems to enable them to evidence how they monitored the service provision. There was a strong emphasis on continually striving to improve.
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.
During our inspection we found areas where the service needed to make improvements. The director representing the provider and the registered manager were proactive in their response to our feedback and were clear that they would be taking immediate action.
Staff and management knew the people living at the service well and were responsive to their needs. However, the records which were in place at the time of our inspection did not reflect this. There was no formal quality assurance system in place to ensure identified shortfalls were addressed promptly.
All care providers have a statutory requirement to notify us about certain changes, events and incidents affecting their service or the people who use it. The service had failed to notify us when a person using the service sustained a serious injury. We had also not been notified of the deaths of people using the service.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
People received care that was personalised to them and met their needs and wishes. Staff listened to people and acted on what they said. The atmosphere in the service was friendly and welcoming. Feedback from people and relatives about the staff and management team was positive and very complimentary.
Procedures were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to.
People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner. We found shortfalls with regard to medication record keeping. The provider has informed us of actions they have taken to rectify this.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment processes checked the suitability of staff to work in the service. People were treated with kindness by the staff. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a caring and compassionate manner.
Staff were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service. The service was up to date with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. People were supported to see, when needed, health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.
People were provided with personalised care and support which was planned to meet their individual needs. People, or their representatives, were involved in making decisions about their care and support.
A complaints procedure was in place. People’s comments, concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner.
There was an open and transparent culture in the service. Staff were aware of the values of the service and understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service.
Following our inspection the provider demonstrated to us that they had developed an auditing tool and action plan and demonstrated how this would form the basis of a more robust and efficient management system.
People's health and personal care needs were assessed and there were detailed care plans in place for care staff to follow which ensured that people were supported safely and in accordance with people's individual preferences and wishes. Staff spoken with demonstrated a good understanding of people's health and personal care needs and how each person wished to be supported.
The provider was able to demonstrate that a robust staff recruitment policy and procedure was in place and adhered to which ensured that people who lived at the service were kept safe. We found that medication practices and procedures were effective, well managed and safe.
People spoken with told us that they were happy with the service they were provided with. One person said, "I am very content thank you." Another person said, "I am very satisfied with all the care and facilities here." A person's relative told us that they felt that their relative's needs were met. They told us that the staff took a, "Genuine interest" in their relative.
People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse. The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. We spoke with five people who use the service and asked them if they felt safe. All of the people responded by saying they did feel safe.
There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff on duty on the day of this inspection to meet people's needs. People were complimentary about the approach of the staff who supported them. One person said, "The carers are very kind."
We saw evidence of senior staff undertaking audits of care plans, medication and risk assessments in order to ensure all paperwork was relevant and up to date. We saw that, when people's needs changed, the service updated care plans and risk assessments accordingly.