Archived: Woodlands - Care Home

Updated 6 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the registered provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 11 September 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care (ASC) inspector, one bank inspector, an inspection manager and two experts by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The experts by experience who assisted with this inspection had knowledge and experience relating to older people and those living with dementia.

Before the inspection, we looked at information we held about the service, which included notifications sent to us since the last inspection. Notifications are when registered providers send us information about certain changes, events or incidents that occur within the service. As part of the inspection process we contacted the local authority for their feedback.

We asked the registered provider to submit a provider information return (PIR) prior to the inspection and this was returned within the given timescale. The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

At this inspection we spoke with the manager, the deputy manager and the quality assurance manager. We spoke with five care workers and the activities co-coordinator. We spoke with 19 people and six relatives who were visiting people at the home.

We observed interactions between people, relatives and care workers in the communal areas and during mealtimes. We looked at how the provider managed and administered people’s medicines and we observed a medication round.

We spent time in the office looking at records associated with the running and management of the home. We looked at individual care records for five people who lived there and we looked at records on file for four care workers.

Updated 6 October 2017

This inspection was carried out on the 11 September 2017 and was unannounced.

Woodlands Care Home is part of the HICA group of homes. It is purpose built. It provides accommodation for up to 54 people some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 44 people living at the home and receiving a service.

The home is situated on the outskirts of Driffield, within walking distance of local community facilities. There are 46 bedrooms for single occupancy (15 with en-suite toilet and wash hand basin facilities) and four bedrooms for double occupancy with wash hand basin facilities. Bathrooms and toilets are shared. There is a lift to the upper floor. There are various communal areas including lounges and dining rooms for people to use. People have access to outside gardens and seating areas, which are provided in secure settings. There is car parking for staff and visitors to the front and side of the service.

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 registered manager will be referred to as 'manager' throughout the report.

At the last inspection in November 2016 the overall rating for the service was Requires Improvement. This was because the provider was in breach of two Regulations under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The breaches were in Regulation 11 Need for consent, and Regulation 17 Good governance. We asked the provider to submit an action plan regarding the breaches identified. During this inspection we checked and found the actions were met and no further breaches were identified.

People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse because there were effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding concerns. Care workers were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Care workers understood their responsibilities under the MCA and were actively promoting people’s independence. The manager and care workers had an understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They had made appropriate referrals to the relevant authorities to ensure people's rights were protected.

Further work was being completed by the provider to ensure that, where a relative had told the service they had a Lasting Power of Attorney, this was validated and the scope of the decision making was recorded.

Care workers were only recruited after checks had been completed to ensure they were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people. A staff dependency tool was used to ensure sufficient skilled care workers were employed to meet people’s needs. On the day of the inspection we saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people's individual needs.

Support plans were person centred and reflected individual's preferences. Information recorded was reviewed and evaluated as a minimum every month and more often where people’s needs changed. This meant care workers had access to up to date records that were reflective of people’s current needs.

Assessments of risk were carried out to ensure any care and support activities were safe and with minimal restrictions. Assessments were carried out around the home environment to ensure it was safe for everybody. Where any concerns were highlighted action plans were implemented and reviewed for their effectiveness.

Care workers were supported to complete training, learning and development that enabled them to fulfil the requirements of their role and meet people’s individual needs and support their preferences. The provider was improving staff records to ensure they were up to date and accessible.

People benefited from an enthusiastic activities coordinator who supported people to pursue interests and activities of their choosing. Activities were provided on a group basis or one to one depending on people’s preferences. People could participate as much or as little as they choose to.

People had access to a healthy variety of food and drink. We received mixed feedback regarding the meal time arrangements. The provider was taking action to address the concerns raised and discussed plans to employ a chef and cook meals in the home.

People had access to a range of health professionals who they could visit or who visited the home to provide care and support to maintain people’s health and wellbeing.

The provider completed quality assurance checks that included regular audits of service delivery, activities of care and support and checks on the home environment. We identified some areas that required further improvement. The provider was aware of concerns we raised and had an action plan in place to ensure the home was appropriately maintained for everybody.

Everybody spoke positively about the manager and the deputy. The manager had a clear understanding of their role and responsibilities with regards to their registration with the CQC. The provider, manager and staff were committed and enthusiastic about providing a person centred service for people.