Woodcock Dell Avenue

We found the following examples of good practice.

The home had an up to date infection control policy. All staff had received training about COVID-19, infection prevention control (IPC), hand washing and in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Management carried out regular monitoring checks of staff IPC practice. Further training/learning was provided if needed. The provider completed comprehensive IPC audits, and any shortfalls were promptly addressed. These arrangements helped to assure the provider that people were protected and safe.

The provider had ensured that the home always had a suitable supply of PPE including face masks, disposable gloves and aprons. A tracker system was in place which closely monitored the PPE stock levels and identified when PPE stocks were low. This minimised the risk of PPE running out and helped ensure that people, staff and visitors were protected from becoming unwell from COVID-19.

During the pandemic staff kept up to date with all relevant guidance to do with the pandemic. The provider had identified five stages of COVID-19 as ‘Prevention, Isolation, Containment, Outbreak and Recovery’. For each stage guidelines that aligned with government guidance were created and followed by staff. These were reviewed and updated regularly in response to changes to national guidance. This helped lessen the risk of spread of infection during the pandemic.

The provider and management ensured that guidance updates were promptly communicated to staff, people and relatives. This and regular communication with the host local authority, public health teams, community healthcare professionals and managers from other care homes helped to ensure the home carried out good IPC practice that kept people safe.

The home was very clean. Frequent cleaning of high touch surfaces was carried out. Relatives spoke positively about the cleanliness of the home. One relative told us that, “The home is always spotlessly clean.”

People using the service and staff had access to regular testing for COVID-19. Any staff or person who had tested positive, isolated in line with government guidance.

The provider followed current government visiting guidance. They ensured that safe visiting arrangements were in place. Visiting procedures included ensuring visitors had a confirmed negative lateral flow test, used hand sanitiser and wore a face mask.

Personalised visiting was supported by the home. Management knew how important visits were to people’s well-being and emotional needs. Some relatives had taken on the role of Essential Caregiver so they could provide their loved one with companionship and emotional support at any time, including times when the home implemented COVID-19 outbreak procedures.

A person spoke favourably about the regular visits they received from their relatives. Relatives were positive about their current visiting arrangements. These visits included going out to local parks and people being supported to visit their relatives in their homes. The visitor’s book showed that there had been many visitors to the home. People who had relatives and friends that were unable to visit regularly were supported by telephone, video calls and letters to keep in touch with them.

Woodcock Dell is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Woodcock Dell provides care and support for up to eight people who have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of the inspection eight people were using the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service had not changed since our last inspection.

Staff were knowledgeable about each person’s needs and engaged with them in a respectful, sensitive and caring manner. Staff respected people’s privacy and treated people with dignity. They understood the importance of respecting people’s differences and human rights.

Staff communicated effectively with people using the service because they understood each person’s communication needs.

People's care plans were up to date and personalised. They included details about people’s individual needs and preferences and guidance for staff to follow so people received the care and support that they needed and wanted.

People had the opportunity to take part in a range of activities that met their interests and needs.

Staff recruitment procedures supported the employment by the service of suitable staff with appropriate abilities to provide people with the care and support that they needed. Staffing levels were flexible so that people always received the care that they required.

Staff received the training and support that they required to carry out their responsibilities in meeting people’s individual needs and supporting their independence.

We received positive feedback from people’s relatives about the service. They told us that they felt people using the service were safe and received the care that they needed from competent staff.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff liaised with healthcare and social care professionals to ensure that people’s health and care needs were met by the service.

People using the service were provided with the support that they needed to choose what they wanted to eat and drink. Staff understood people’s varied dietary needs and ensured that these were accommodated by the service.

Staff understood their obligations regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). 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’s relatives knew how to raise a complaint and were confident that any concerns would be addressed.

Arrangements to monitor and improve the quality of the service were in place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Woodcock Dell Avenue is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for eight people. The home provides care and support for people who have moderate or profound learning disabilities and may also have a physical disability. The service is operated by Norwood a Jewish organisation providing care predominantly to people of the Jewish faith. On the day of our visit there were seven people living in the home and one person was in hospital.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] 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.

People were cared for by staff who knew them well. People were treated with respect and staff engaged with people in a friendly and courteous manner. Throughout our visit we observed caring and supportive relationships between staff and people using the service. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and understood the importance of confidentiality. People were supported to choose and take part in a range of activities of their choice.

There were procedures for safeguarding people. Staff knew how to safeguard the people they supported and cared for.

Arrangements were in place to make sure sufficient numbers of skilled staff were deployed at all times. People’s individual needs and risks were identified and managed as part of their plan of care and support to minimise the likelihood of harm. Accidents and incidents were addressed appropriately.

People were supported by staff to be as independent as possible and were provided with the support they needed to maintain and develop links with their family and others important to them.

People were supported to maintain good health. They had access to a wide range of appropriate healthcare services that monitored their health and provided people with appropriate support, treatment and specialist advice when needed. People were supported and encouraged to choose what they wanted to eat and drink.

Staff were appropriately recruited and supported to provide people with individualised care and support. Staff received a range of training to enable them to be skilled and competent to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us they enjoyed working in the home and received the support and training they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

Staff understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were encouraged and supported to make decisions for themselves whenever possible. Staff knew about the systems in place for making decisions in people’s best interest when they were unable to make one or more decisions about their care, treatment and/or other aspects of their lives.

There were systems in place to regularly assess, monitor and improve the quality of the services provided for people. These included unannounced spot checks of the service carried out by management staff.

We found that those who used the service were treated with respect. One family member told us "Staff always get the right note with my relative. They show them such respect and kindness."

We found that people's care needs were met. We noted that there were procedures in place to deal with emergencies. We saw that each person using the service had a care plan specific to their needs. A person who used the service told us "I really like to be here. Staff help me and look after me."

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risks of abuse as robust safeguarding procedures were in place. A member of staff told us "It is so important to always be aware of the possibility of abuse."

We saw that there were suitable arrangements in place to ensure that persons employed to carry on the regulated activity were appropriately supported in relation to their responsibilities.

We found that the provider identified, assessed and managed risks relating to the health and welfare of those who used the service. We were told that "It is important to learn from incidents and amend practice accordingly."

We observed staff responding to people's needs in a respectful and sensitive manner. For example, staff explained what was going to happen next and offered people choices. People's cultural and spiritual needs were recorded in their care plans. All of the people using the service were of the Jewish faith and preparations were being made for Passover at the time of our visit.

Care records were clearly written, detailed and contained information for staff about how to meet people's needs taking into account individual preferences, likes and dislikes. People's health needs were met and any risks to people's welfare were assessed and managed in a way that minimised the risk of harm.

Effective systems were in place for the safe storage, administration and disposal of medicines in the home.

We found that there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and people were also supported by a number of volunteers who visited the home on a regular basis.

There was an effective complaints management system in place and people were encouraged to express their views of the service.

People told us or indicated they were happy living in the home. They informed us they liked their bedrooms and had the opportunity to participate in activities of their choice. We saw people made a number of choices. These included making decisions about what they wanted to eat and what they wanted to do. During our visit people showed signs of 'well being' and were seen to be relaxed. We saw people smile, laugh and approach staff without hesitation. People told us that they felt safe living in the home and knew who to talk to if they had a worry or concern.

We saw staff respected people's privacy by knocking on people's bedroom doors prior to entering their bedroom. Staff supported people in a friendly and competent way. People confirmed that staff assisted them when they needed support with their care and told us that staff were kind.

People using the service, records and staff told us that people's health, care and welfare needs were being met by the home. We noted that people had good access to outside health care professionals such as doctors, district nurses, opticians, dentists and chiropodists.

Staff spoke of enjoying their job supporting and caring for people at Woodcock Dell Avenue. They give us examples of how they maintained peoples' dignity, privacy, independence and told us about how they ensured people were offered choices in all aspects of their lives. Staff told us there was good staff teamwork and they felt supported by the manager and by other staff.

The home had systems in place to ensure that the service provided to people was of quality and was monitored closely.