Woodland Hall

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe - this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. The last rating for this key question was Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Systems were in place to help ensure safe transitions and pathways for people. Assessments of people’s needs, risks and wishes were completed and reviewed regularly to ensure they were reflective of people’s needs.

Assessments of people’s needs were carried out before they moved into the home. Care plans were developed and shared with health and social care professionals when required.

Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals to help ensure people received appropriate support that met their needs. These included GP’s, hospital staff and dietitians.

Management worked with healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They promoted and actioned continuity of care. Staff worked with other agencies to ensure a smooth transition between services.

Systems were in place to help ensure safe transitions and pathways for people. Assessments of people’s needs, risks and wishes were completed and reviewed regularly to ensure they were reflective of people’s needs.

Assessments of people’s needs were carried out before they moved into the home. Care plans were developed and shared with health and social care professionals when required.

Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals to help ensure people received appropriate support that met their needs. These included GP’s, hospital staff and dietitians.

Management worked with healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They promoted and actioned continuity of care. Staff worked with other agencies to ensure a smooth transition between services.

Procedures were in place to help safeguard people from abuse and improper treatment. Staff knew how to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and received training to help ensure they were up to date with best practice guidance. Staff knew how to report concerns and said that they wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

Regular meetings enabled staff to have discussions about safeguarding to help embed staff knowledge. The home had posters of information for people using the service, visitors and staff to help them know how and who to report concerns to.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe. A person said, “It’s still a very good home where I feel safe and very much like being here.” A relative told us, “Staff are attentive, helpful and facilities are good. We know [service user] is very safe here.”

The management team worked closely with the local safeguarding team and others to investigate allegations of abuse and to help reduce the risk of harm. They kept records of safeguarding concerns and management had oversight over these.

Where people lacked capacity, appropriate applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place. Decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests and for their safety.

Systems to identify, assess and plan for risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were in place and effective. Risk assessments were detailed and included personalised care plans to help manage these risks. Staff regularly reviewed and updated assessments and plans.

Staff had completed training to understand how to support people to move safely and how to protect their skin. Staff were able to explain how they supported each person.

Management explained that they reviewed risks to help ensure underlying themes were identified and appropriate action was taken to minimise the risk and reoccurrence of risks to people in the home. For example, records showed that the number of falls within the home was monitored closely and reviewed monthly by management to help look for trends. They deputy manager explained that they strived to promote independence so that people could move freely around the home whilst implementing control measures to help reduce the risk of falls.

Staff were knowledgeable about risks to people and how to safely protect them and reduce the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with told us they wouldn’t hesitate to raise concerns with management and had confidence that the appropriate action would be taken.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked well together to provide safe care for people that met people’s individual needs.

People and relatives told us their needs were met, and staff were available whenever they needed them. They told us there were sufficient staffing numbers. A person said, “I also think that there are enough staff; I don’t wait for help long and there is no lack of staff on weekends. It’s constant.”

During the site visit, we observed staff taking their time when supporting people and providing care in a calm way. Staff were attentive when people needed help. Call bells were answered promptly.

Staff told us there were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs. They said communication in the home was effective and they were kept informed of changes and developments. The home had a stable workforce and good staff retention.

Policies and procedures were in place to help recruit staff safely. Checks on the suitability of potential staff were completed. This included obtaining references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and help prevent unsuitable people from working in care services.

Staff undertook a range of training and had regular supervision meetings and appraisals to discuss their work. The management team carried out spot checks, competency assessments and observations to help ensure staff had the right skills and knowledge for their roles.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked well together to provide safe care for people that met people’s individual needs.

People and relatives told us their needs were met, and staff were available whenever they needed them. They told us there were sufficient staffing numbers. A person said, “I also think that there are enough staff; I don’t wait for help long and there is no lack of staff on weekends. It’s constant.”

During the site visit, we observed staff taking their time when supporting people and providing care in a calm way. Staff were attentive when people needed help. Call bells were answered promptly.

Staff told us there were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs. They said communication in the home was effective and they were kept informed of changes and developments. The home had a stable workforce and good staff retention.

Policies and procedures were in place to help recruit staff safely. Checks on the suitability of potential staff were completed. This included obtaining references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and help prevent unsuitable people from working in care services.

Staff undertook a range of training and had regular supervision meetings and appraisals to discuss their work. The management team carried out spot checks, competency assessments and observations to help ensure staff had the right skills and knowledge for their roles.

Systems were in place to help prevent the risk of infection in the home. The home was clean and was free from odours. Domestic staff were employed to oversee cleaning and laundry in the home. An infection control audit was carried out monthly.

Staff had training about infection prevention and control and understood their responsibilities.

People and relatives spoke positively about the cleanliness of the home and no concerns were raised. A relative said, “Staff are cleaning all the time. It is a really clean home.”

People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines including controlled drugs were stored securely and at the required temperatures.

Some people were prescribed medicines for pain relief and anxiety to be administered on a when-required basis (PRN). The PRN protocols and information in the care plans for these medicines was not always person-centred. There was a significant proportion of people who were prescribed psychotropic medicines. Care plans did not always guide staff not to use these medicines as the first line of treatment. However, we saw evidence of regular reviews of these medicines.

Some people were administered medicines covertly. Covert medication is when medicines are administered in a disguised form so that the person is not aware that they are taking medication. Staff consulted with the GP appropriately in relation to covert medication. The pharmacist had also been consulted on how to safely crush or mix the medicines with food or drink. However, staff did not always record the consultation with the next of kin or advocate and the outcome of the consultation.

Staff received training and were competency assessed to handle medicines safely. Staff carried out audits to identify gaps and make improvements. There was a process to report and investigate errors and incidents. There was a process in place to receive and act on medicine alerts.