You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

Woodhorn Park is a residential care home close to the centre of Ashington. The service provides care for up to 60 people, over two floors. There were 57 people using the service at the time of the inspection; with 27 people cared for on the ground floor residential unit, and 30 people in the upstairs 'Memory Lane' unit for people living with dementia.

The inspection took place on 25 January and 3 February 2017 and was unannounced. A previous inspection in September 2015 found three breaches of legal requirements.

A registered manager was 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.

At the previous inspection we found that risks to the health and safety of people who used the service had not always been assessed and mitigated. At this inspection we found improvements in this area. Individual risks to people were assessed and reviewed regularly. Checks on the safety of the premises and equipment were also carried out and staff demonstrated an awareness of maintaining a safe environment as they worked.

The premises were clean and staff were aware of procedures to follow to prevent the spread of infection. Suitable personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons were readily available, and cleaning chemicals were safely stored.

There were mixed views about the number of staff on duty. The registered manager was staffing the service in line with the dependency assessment rating tool used by the provider, although she had identified certain times of the day that could be very busy and had requested additional staff hours. We found that staffing on the ground floor, up to and including the lunch time period was insufficient to consistently meet the demands of people in a timely manner. Immediately following our inspection additional staff hours were agreed and an additional staff member was deployed without delay to support this busy period. Due to the concerns raised about staffing we made a recommendation that staffing remains under review.

Medicines were managed safely. There were suitable procedures in place for the ordering, receipt, storage and administration of medicines. Staff competency to administer medicines safely was assessed on a regular basis, and medicine audits were carried out internally and by the dispensing pharmacy.

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place, and staff were aware of what to do in the event of concerns of a safeguarding nature. Suitable staff recruitment procedures were in place which helped to protect people from abuse.

At the last inspection we found that support provided at mealtimes was not always person centred. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made in this area. Staff supported people to make choices by providing written menus and visual aids. The individual needs and preferences of people were supported including people receiving meals in their bedroom. Nutritional risks were assessed and appropriate advice sought for people at risk of malnutrition.

Staff received regular training considered mandatory by the provider. Clear records of training were maintained. Additional specialist training related to people's individual psychological and physical needs was also provided. Staff received regular supervision and annual appraisal, and told us they felt well supported.

At the last inspection, we found that improvements had been made to the environment in the Memory Lane unit, for people living with dementia. At this inspection, we found that there had been further improvements with more planned. People's bedrooms were personalised and homely.

The service was operating within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA). MCA care plan

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were managed safely and a procedure was in place to ensure the competency of staff administering medicines.

Risks to people were assessed and reviewed to ensure the safety and comfort of people living in the service. Safety checks of the premises and equipment were carried out.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed which helped to protect people from abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

The service was effective.

People's capacity levels had been considered and the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) was applied appropriately.

Staff received regular training, supervision and appraisals. Specialist training about specific health and psychological needs was provided.

People were supported with eating and drinking and nutritional assessments were carried out. Appropriate action took place in the event of concerns about the nutritional needs of people.

The premises were adapted to meet the needs of people living with dementia and further improvements were planned.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

The service was caring.

We saw that staff spoke kindly with people and treated them with respect.

Dignity was preserved and personal care was offered discreetly and sensitively.

The independence of people was supported and promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

The service was responsive.

Person centred care plans were in place and these were reviewed and updated regularly.

A range of activities were available and there were close links with the local community.

A complaints procedure was in place, Complaints were logged and dealt with appropriately by the manager in line with company policy.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

The service was well led.

A registered manager was in post. The manager was supported by a deputy manager. People staff and visitors told us the managers were helpful and approachable.

Regular audits to monitor the quality of the service were carried out.

Staff and relatives told us that the service was well organised.

Feedback systems were in place to obtain people's views such as surveys and meetings.