You are here

Woodlands Residential Home for Ladies Good

We are carrying out a review of quality at Woodlands Residential Home for Ladies. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 April 2017

Woodlands Residential Home for Ladies provides accommodation, care and support for up to 23 female residents. There were 20 people living in the service when we inspected on 2 March 2017.

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 in

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 April 2017

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to minimise risks to people and to keep them safe.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment checks were completed to make sure people were safe.

People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 April 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to meet people’s needs effectively.

The service was up to date with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services which ensured they received ongoing healthcare support.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 14 April 2017

The service was extremely caring.

Staff were exceptionally compassionate, attentive and caring in their interactions with people. People’s independence, privacy and dignity was promoted and respected at all times

Staff placed high importance on, and took account of, people’s individual needs and preferences.

People told us how staff went the extra mile to make sure that they were happy.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and their families were appropriately involved.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People were provided with personalised care to meet their assessed needs and preferences.

People’s concerns and complaints were investigated, responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 April 2017

The service was well-led.

The service provided a positive, open culture. People were asked for their views about the service and their comments were listened to and acted upon.

The management team set a high standard and led by example.

The management team 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.