You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Tikvah Woodpeckers on 9 September 2021. 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 Tikvah Woodpeckers, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 19 October 2017

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 14 November 2017.

Tikvah Woodpeckers is a care home without nursing which is registered to provide a service for up to eight people with learning disabilities and associated physical disabilities. Some people had other associated difficulties such as being on the autistic spectrum. There were seven people living in the service on the day of the visit. All accommodation is provided within two ground floor buildings which are located near to each other.

At the last inspection in August 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

There is a registered manager running the service. 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 service remained safe. People’s safety was contributed to by staff who had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and health and safety policies and procedures. Staff understood how to protect people and who to alert if they had any concerns. General risks and risks to individuals were identified and appropriate action was taken to reduce them.

There were enough staff on duty at all times to meet people’s diverse, individual needs safely. The service had a stable staff team. However, if they did recruit new staff they had systems in place to ensure, that as far as possible, staff recruited were safe and suitable to work with people. People were given their medicines safely, at the right times and in the right amounts by trained and competent staff.

The service remained effective. Staff were well-trained and able to meet people’s health and well-being needs. They were able to respond effectively to people’s current and changing needs. The service sought advice from and worked with health and other professionals to ensure they met people’s needs.

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 practise.

The service continued to be caring and responsive. The committed, attentive and knowledgeable staff team provided care with kindness and respect. Individualised care planning ensured people’s equality and diversity was respected. People were provided with a wide variety of activities, according to their needs, abilities, health and preferences.

The registered manager was highly thought of and respected. The quality of care the service provided continued to be assessed, reviewed and improved, as necessary.

Inspection carried out on 11 August 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 11 August 2015 and was unannounced. Tikvah Woodpeckers is a residential care home for people with learning disabilities and associated physical disabilities. It can provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people at any one time. On the day of the inspection eight people were using the service.

At the time of the inspection 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 provider completed recruitment checks on potential members of staff. Maintenance of the property was carried out promptly. Checks on fire alarms and emergency lighting had been completed in accordance with the provider’s policy and manufacturer’s instructions.

There was a system to ensure people received their medicines safely and appropriately. The quality of the service was monitored by the registered manager through gaining regular feedback from people and their representatives and the auditing of the service. The provider had plans in place to deal with emergencies that may arise.

People who use the service were unable to give specific views but relatives and commissioners told us they were happy with the service they received from Tikvah Woodpeckers and felt that people were safe using the service. The service had systems in place to manage risks to both people and staff. Staff had good awareness of how to keep people safe by reporting concerns promptly through procedures they understood well. Information and guidance was available for them to use if they had any concerns.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care as far as they were able and relatives/representatives told us they had been asked for their views on the service. People’s care and support needs were reviewed regularly. The registered manager ensured that up to date information was communicated promptly to staff.

Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and said they were listened to if they raised concerns and action was taken straight away if necessary. We found an open culture in the service and staff were comfortable to approach the registered manager for advice and guidance.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to gaining consent before providing support and care, therefore people’s right to make decisions was protected. New staff received an induction and training in core topics.

Inspection carried out on 30 September 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of the visit there were five people living in Tikvah and three people living in Woodpeckers. We spoke to three people and five members of staff. One person said they were "happy" living in the home and another said that staff were "kind" to them.

Staff appeared motivated and one said they "loved" their work and all staff said that they felt valued and listened to.

We saw that the homes were clean and the decor was in a reasonable state. There was equipment available to ensure that people's physical needs were met.

People were encouraged to make choices and staff made efforts to support them in this. We saw that people were treated as individuals and there were opportunities for people to pursue leisure and educational activities.

Staff were observed to interact with people in a friendly and respectful way and despite the complex problems that people had, the homes were calm and people appeared relaxed.

Inspection carried out on 11 December 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit there were seven people living at the home. Six people were out in the morning and one person went out in the afternoon attending various activities in the community.

We spent time observing how staff interacted with people using the service. We saw people making their choices known to staff and staff responding appropriately. As we were unable to speak to the people who lived at the home we spoke to their relatives. One relative told us they were "very pleased" with the care and they felt "very lucky" to have their relative living at the home. Another told us the care was "excellent" and the manager "worked very hard to work out what they should be doing" with their relative.

We spoke to staff about the training they received and we reviewed some of the documents relating to training. Staff told us they received the right kind of training to do their job and they felt supported by their managers at the home.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)