Woodside View

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.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The registered manager understood their role to record accidents and incidents, and how to reduce the risk of these happening again. There were systems in place, including an accident and incident reporting policy and procedure, and staff knew how to record these. The registered manager analysed incidents to look at patterns and possible ways to reduce them. This included a monthly analysis and regular discussions with the team. Records showed accidents and incidents were reported to the local authority where this was appropriate.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

There was a business continuity plan in place which included information on what to do in the event of an emergency. This contained information on which areas staff should prioritise in relation to gas and electricity, the steps that should be taken if the service is not inhabitable and an incident management plan which included relevant contact details.

We saw referrals were made to ensure safe transitions such as to the community mental health team and other partners. A healthcare professional told us, “The team communicates well and always provides detailed background information, which really helps with a smooth transition for residents coming into the home.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and staff treated them with respect. One relative told us, “I looked at a few care homes for my mum before bringing her to Woodside and I made the right choice. They all treat her with dignity and respect.” Another relative commented, “I don’t have any concerns.”

Staff completed training for safeguarding and whistleblowing, and there was a safeguarding policy and procedure in place. Staff told us they knew how to recognise potential signs of abuse and how to report these internally and externally. One member of staff told us, “[If we] find some bruises or something, then it maybe it’s physical abuse. We could tell CQC.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. The provider understood their responsibility in relation to safeguarding people’s rights and what would constitute a restrictive practice. Applications were submitted to the local authority, and we saw that applications had considered the least restrictive ways and involved relevant partners in the decision-making process.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and their relatives told us staff managed risks in relation to their care appropriately. One relative told us, “Staff took all action to avoid falls when he was mobile and always kept him safe. He’s never left alone for long.” Another relative told us, “They know exactly how much to push a resident and do not overdo it.”

Staff understood risks in relation to people’s care and involved them in the decision-making process. They told us they were given the time by the registered manager to read people’s risk assessments and that there was enough information in care records for them to follow.

People’s care records included information on how manage specific risks, for example, in relation to developing pressure sores, falls, and where people expressed their feelings with a heightened emotional reaction. Where healthcare professionals had provided instructions care records reflected this. Whilst the registered manager was able to provide all information we requested in relation to risk management, the information was not always easily accessible using the electronic system. The registered manager told us they were still in the process of transferring some paper-based records to the system and acknowledged that this was an area they were actively working to improve.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We identified 2 doors which should be kept shut for fire safety reasons or attached to a suitable automatic closing device but these were wedged open. We also found the sluice room was not always locked which meant this area was potentially accessible to people and posed a potential risk due to the equipment stored in the room. The registered manager ensured there were systems implemented to check these regularly when we made them aware and provided assurances.

The provider undertook regular checks of the environment and worked with external partners to make the service safer. People and their relatives told us the environment people lived in was safe. One relative told us, “I think it’s safe. They have fire alarms that are regularly tested.”

We saw there were systems in place to ensure equipment was safe to use, such as fire evacuation equipment checks, electrical equipment checks, food safety and mobility aids.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. However, staffing at nighttime needed to be reviewed.

We observed there were sufficient staff throughout the assessment and staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs. However, there were only 2 staff members allocated to work at the service at nighttime despite several people requiring support with repositioning. This had to be undertaken by 2 staff according to people’s care plans. When we discussed this with the provider, they told us they had already identified this shortfall and showed us that they had planned for extra staff to start working in the service. However, this was not due to take place immediately and therefore this meant people were at risk. The provider acted on this and put in additional staff from the next day.

People and their relatives told us there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. One person told us, “Everything I’ve asked for has been provided. Staff are always popping in to check on me if I don’t ring the bell.” A relative commented, “I don’t see any issues with the number of staff working there. There’s always someone there who you can approach.”

Staff told us there were enough of them and that they had enough time to safely meet people’s needs. One member of staff told us, “Yes, enough staff here. We will give priority for the safety of the residents.”

Staff had completed training to undertake their role and had received regular supervisions. Staff rosters showed a regular staff team which meant there was continuity of care for people. Staff were recruited safely to the service. This included requesting and receiving references from previous employers, right-to-work documentation, checking professional registrations and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks are carried out to confirm whether prospective new staff had a criminal record or were barred from working with people at the time.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People and their relatives told us the environment was clean and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to infection control. One relative told us, “The environment is safe and always clean. If someone drops something the staff pick it up straight away.” Another relative commented, “I see them with PPE (personal protective equipment) on whenever I’ve gone there. They always wear aprons and gloves for personal care.”

Records showed that staff cleaned the environment regularly and they told us they had sufficient PPE. We observed staff following effective infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures throughout our site visit. The provider had IPC policies and procedures in place and undertook regular IPC checks of the environment and equipment. They understood their responsibilities to report infection outbreaks to the relevant health authorities. One member of staff told us, “I’ve done IPC training. We’ve got more training in April.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People and their relatives told us medicines were managed safely. One relative told us, “They’re on the ball and it’s such a relief for us.” Medicines were stored and disposed of securely. Where medicines required extra monitoring, this was completed. Medicines were administered by trained staff who had completed up-to-date medication competency assessments and training. Staff followed the home's medication policy and received annual refresher training. Medicine administration records were completed accurately, with clear signatures and codes for non-administration where appropriate. The provider had a medicines management policy and ‘as required’ medication protocols were in place. Regular audits of medication practices were carried out by the management team. Where issues were identified, action plans were put in place and followed up to completion. Staff spoken to felt confident and supported in their roles.