• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Woodgate

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Queens Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME16 0JG (01622) 677235

Provided and run by:
Choice Support

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

3 June 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Woodgate is a residential care home that accommodates up to six people with a learning disability. People had complex communication needs and used body language, signs and facial expressions to let staff know how they were feeling. At the time of the inspection there were five people living at the service.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service had improved so people could be assured that they would be treated with dignity, privacy and respect at all times. People benefitted from being supported by staff who knew them well, including their likes, dislikes and preferred routines. Staff knew how to interact with people who had limited verbal communication, so they could understand their needs and respond to them.

The registered manager and staff team had worked in partnership with other professionals to minimise risks to people’s safety. After a challenging period, the environment had returned to one of calm and relatives reported that people were safe. There were arrangements to make sure there were enough staff available to support people when they needed it.

Staff received ongoing training and support to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s individual needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People had access to health care services in a timely manner and partnerships had been developed with a range of health care professionals. Mealtimes were social occasions where people sat together, and staff made sure people had enough to eat and drink. People continued to receive their medicines when they were needed.

Guidance was available for staff to follow about how to meet people’s health, social and personal care needs. People were given informed choices about how they would like to spend their time and asked if they had any concerns about their care. Activities took place in people’s home, including sensory sessions and people also had the opportunity to go out.

People benefitted from the open and inclusive culture that was implemented by effective leadership from the management team. There was a culture of learning from best practice and of working collaboratively with other professionals and health providers to ensure partnership working resulted in good outcomes for people. Relatives said the service was well run and they would recommend it to others.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update: Requires Improvement (last report published)

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 24 20 June 2018) and there was one breach of regulation: People were not consistently treated with dignity and respect. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

16 April 2018

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 16 April 2018 and was unannounced.

Woodgate is a care home managed by MCCH Society Ltd. The home offers accommodation and long term care and support to up to six adults with learning disabilities in a purpose built bungalow. There were six people living at the service when we inspected.

Woodgate 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 care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Woodgate provides accommodation and personal care. The accommodation is in a bungalow in a quiet residential area, with bedrooms, bathrooms and all facilities on the ground floor to provide fully accessible services to people with physical disabilities. There is a communal lounge, a dining room and a conservatory/activities room and a garden to the rear of the home. Woodgate was previously inspected in November 2015 where they were rated as Good. This is the first time that the service has been rated as Requires Improvement.

There was a registered manager at 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.

People did not consistently have their dignity upheld. One person was wheeled through the service on a shower chair without being fully covered and the same person was later left on the toilet with the toilet door open. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People were kept safe from abuse and harm and staff knew how to report concerns around abuse. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs and ensure they were kept safe. Risks had been managed safely and where potential hazards were identified they had control measures applied to reduce the possibility of harm.

People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who had been trained and competency checked. Staff understood the best practice procedures for reducing the risk of infection; and audits were carried out to ensure the environment was clean and safe. The service used incidents, accidents and near misses to learn from mistakes and drive improvements.

People had effective assessments prior to a service being offered and care outcomes were planned for. Staff understood what support each person required and were trained in key areas to carry out their roles. Staff had been supervised effectively by their manager and their performance had been appraised. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain good health and staff used nationally recognised guidance to ensure people had a balanced diet.

The service worked in collaboration with other professionals including local health teams to ensure care was effectively delivered. People maintained good health and had access to health and social care professionals. Environments were risk assessed to ensure people were safe and met people’s individual 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 support this practice. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act were being complied with and any restrictions were assessed to ensure they were lawful and the least restrictive option.

Staff knew people’s needs well and people told us they liked their staff. People and their relatives were consulted around their care and support and their views were acted upon. Staff treated people with kindness and spoke warmly about the people they supported.

Some people were not able to go out as often as they would like. Some people went out more frequently than others. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.

People’s needs were fully assessed and care plans ensured that personal details were carried through to care delivery. There was a complaints policy and form, including an accessible format available to people. Complaints were used to improve the service delivered to people. People at the end of their lives were able to receive a pain free and dignified death.

There was an open and inclusive culture that was implemented by effective leadership from the management team. People and staff spoke of a person centred culture that was empowering. The management team understood their regulatory responsibilities.

People, their families and staff members were involved in the running of the service. There was a culture of learning from best practice and of working collaboratively with other professionals and health providers to ensure partnership working resulted in good outcomes for people.

1 September 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out on 1 September 2015 and was unannounced.

The service provided accommodation for people who require personal care. The accommodation was a large bungalow providing support to six people with learning disabilities. There were six people living in the service when we inspected.

There was a registered manager employed at 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 Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and DoLS. Mental capacity assessments and decisions made in people’s best interest were recorded. At the time of the inspection the registered manager had applied for DoLS authorisations for the six people living at the service, with the support of the local authority DoLS team.

Potential risks to people in their everyday lives had been identified, and, had been assessed in relation to the impact that it had on people.

People told us and indicated that they felt safe. Staff had received training about protecting people from abuse, and they knew what action to take if they suspected abuse. The management team had access to, and understood the safeguarding policies of the local authority.

People received their medicines safely and when they needed them. Policies and procedures were in place for the safe administration of medicines and staff had been trained to administer medicines safely.

People’s health was monitored and when it was necessary, health care professionals were involved to make sure people remained as healthy as possible.

People’s needs were assessed before moving into the service with involvement from relatives, health professionals and the person’s funding authority. Care plans contained detailed information and clear guidance about all aspects of a person’s health, social and personal care needs to enable staff to meet people’s needs.

People’s food and drink consumption had been recorded on a daily basis. Staff knew when and how to make a referral to a healthcare professional if they had concerns about a person’s health.

Recruitment practices were safe and checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable to work with people who needed care and support. People were involved in the recruitment of their staff.

Policies and procedures were in place for the registered manager to follow if staff were not fulfilling their job role.

Staff were considerate and respectful when speaking about people. Staff knew people very well, including their personal histories, hobbies and interests. There was a relaxed atmosphere in the service between people and staff. Health professionals told us the staff team were welcoming and understood the needs of people well.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal, so they were supported to carry out their roles. People were supported by staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

The registered manager ensured that they had planned for unforeseeable emergencies, so that should they happen people’s care needs would continue to be met. The premises were maintained and checked to help ensure the safety of people, staff and visitors.

There were systems in place to review accident and incidents, which were able to detect and alert the registered manager to any patterns or trends that had developed.

The complaints procedure was readily available in a format that was accessible to some people who used the service. Staff knew people well and were able to recognise signs of anxiety or upset through behaviours and body language.

People felt that the service was well led. They told us that the registered manager was approachable and listened to their views. The registered manager of the service and other senior managers provided good leadership and were visible within the service.

We have made a recommendation that the service follow’s people’s risk assessments relating to the security of the service.

22 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff at all times to meet people's needs.

16 July 2013

During a routine inspection

The inspection lasted for 6 hours. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service, because people had complex needs which meant that they were not able to tell us their experiences themselves.

We found that where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for obtaining medicine and medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately. Medicines were administered and kept safely.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

There were not enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff at all times to meet people's needs.

People were made aware of the complaints system. This was provided in a format that met their needs.

28 May 2012

During a routine inspection

There were five people living at Woodgate at the time of our visit. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not always able to tell us about their experiences. We observed how people interacted with staff and the management of the service. We saw people were supported appropriately and the atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed.

28 October 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who lived in the home during our visit. We saw that staff were careful to protect people's privacy and dignity. People told us they liked living in the home. One person told us they knew about their care records. Some people were not able to engage with the review process.