You are here

Woodland Nursing Home Requires improvement

We are carrying out checks at Woodland Nursing Home. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 28 June 2018

This inspection took place on the 16 May 2018 and was unannounced. At the previous inspection of the service in February 2016 we rated them as Good and made one recommendation. This was because people were not always given a choice about whether or not their bedroom door was left open. During this inspection we found this issue had been addressed.

Woodland Nursing Home is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is registered to provide support with nursing and personal care to a maximum of 30 adults. At the time of inspection 23 people were using the service, many of whom were living with dementia. The service is built over four floors, with people living on the upper three floors.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 this inspection we found two breaches of regulations. This was because quality assurance and monitoring systems were not always effective and the provider had failed to notify CQC about people who were subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisation, even though they were legally obliged to do so. In addition, we have made four recommendations. These were related to fire safety, staffing levels, equality and diversity and the home's décor. We are still considering what our response will be to breaches of regulations.

People told us they felt safe using the service and systems were in place to help safeguard them from abuse. Risk assessments had been developed which set out how to meet people’s needs safely. Checks were carried out on prospective staff to help ensure they were suitable to work at the service. Medicines were managed safely and there were systems in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.

Pre-admission assessments were undertaken which looked at people’s care support needs. Staff were supported through regular training and supervision and new staff undertook an induction training programme on commencing work at the service. People told us they enjoyed the food and we saw they were offered choices about what they ate. People were able to access health care professionals and the service kept family members informed of any health issues.

People said they were treated in a kind and caring manner by staff. Care plans set out how to support people in a dignified manner. Staff had a good understand of how to promote people’s dignity, privacy and independence.

Care plans for people set out how to support them in a personalised manner relevant to the individual. Activities were offered and people told us they valued and enjoyed them. Systems were in place for dealing with complaints and people told us they knew how to make complaint if needed. Care plans included information about supporting people with end of life care.

Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and systems were in place for seeking the views of people who used the service and their relatives.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 28 June 2018

The service was not always safe. People told us there were not enough staff to meet their needs in a timely manner. There were no records that fire doors were tested to make sure they were properly operational.

The service had systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding.

Robust staff recruitment practices were followed to help ensure suitable staff worked at the service.

Risk assessments were in place which set out how to support people safely.

There were arrangements in place for the safe management of medicines and to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 28 June 2018

The service was not always effective. Pre- admission assessments did not cover people’s needs in relation to equality and diversity issues. The standard of décor and furniture in the service was not high and people had raised concerns about this.

Staff undertook regular training to support them in their role and they had regular one to one supervision meetings.

The service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people were able to make choices about their care.

People were able to choose what they ate and drank and they told us they liked the food provided.

People were supported to access relevant health care professionals if required.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 June 2018

The service was caring. People told us they were treated with respect by staff and that staff were friendly and caring.

Staff had a good understanding of how to promote people’s dignity, privacy and independence. Staff interacted with people in a friendly and respectful manner.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 June 2018

The service was responsive. Care plans were in place which set out how to meet people’s needs in a personalised manner.

People were supported to engage in various activities in the home and community.

The service had an appropriate complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a compliant.

People were appropriately supported with end of life care.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 28 June 2018

The service was not always well-led. The provider had failed to notify the Care Quality Commission of those people who were subject to a DoLS authorisation as they were legally obliged to do. Systems for monitoring the quality and safety of support were not always effective.

The service had a registered manager in place and staff spoke positively about them.

Systems were in place for seeking the views of people who used the service and their relatives.