Archived: Woodlands Residential Care Home

We last inspected Woodlands Residential Care Home in September 2014. At that inspection we found that the service was meeting the regulations we assessed.

Woodlands Residential Care Home is registered to provide 24 hour care and support for up to 18 adults who have physical and or mental health problems. The home is a large detached property overlooking Alexandra Park in Oldham, Lancashire and is located approximately one mile from the town centre. At the time of our inspection 17 people were living at the home.

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.

Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of their role in protecting people and making sure people remained safe and free from harm.

Those staff that had received appropriate training were responsible for the management and administration of medicines at the home. A policy and procedure was in place for the safe handling of medication and completed documentation was available to show that medication was being administered to people using the service as prescribed by their general practitioner.

Staffing rotas indicated that there was a consistent number of staff on duty throughout the week and at weekends to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

Risk assessments were in place and provided guidance for staff to follow about how to manage identified risk(s) in order to promote and maintain people’s independence wherever possible.

Suitable arrangements were in place for the prevention and control of infection. All bathrooms and toilet areas were clean and hygienic and all contained a wall mounted liquid soap dispenser and paper towel dispenser.

People’s healthcare assessments and identified needs were reflected within their care plans, which were reviewed on a regular basis.

Staff told us, and we observed, people being asked for their consent and cooperation before any care or support was offered or given. Where people refused support, this was respected.

We spoke with the cook who told us about the different types of meals provided, including catering for people that are diabetic or required special diets. They were also knowledgeable about the likes and dislikes of people who lived at the home.

The staff had good working relationships with visiting healthcare professionals such as doctors, district nurses and individuals from the community mental health team.

Wherever possible, people using the service would be involved in discussions about their care and treatment and the decision would then be recorded in their care plan. For those people who may not be able to participate in discussions, we saw that representatives had been involved in the care planning process. We spoke with a relative who confirmed such discussions had been held with them about their relatives care and support needs.

The individualised approach to people’s needs meant that both staff and the registered manager provided a flexible and responsive approach to meeting the care and support needs of people using the service.

People using the service, who we spoke with, told us that their private space such as their bedrooms were respected by staff who asked the persons’ permission before entering.

Staff received regular training in line with their individual roles. Staff spoken with confirmed that the registered manager regularly assessed their work performance and used team meetings and individual supervision sessions to discuss their work and the development of the service.

Systems were in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service on a consistent basis, including obtaining feedback from people who used the service and their relatives.

Those staff we spoke with were all committed to the ethos of the home and described the value base of the service as one that gave priority to maintaining the health, wellbeing and safety of the people who lived in the home.

At the time of the inspection there were 17 people living at Woodlands Residential Care Home. Our inspection team was made up of one inspector who considered the evidence collected under five outcomes and addressed the following question; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found. Please read the full report for the evidence supporting our summary.

Is the service safe?

People living at Woodlands Residential Care Home had an individual care file that included risk assessments and a care plan that described how to meet people's individual care needs.

All of the people spoken with told us that they were pleased with the care they were receiving. They also told us they had never seen or heard anything at the home that would cause them concern.

We found that the provider had effective systems in place to maintain appropriate cleanliness levels within the home.

During the inspection we saw two rooms were being used to store cleaning materials and equipment. We noted that the upstairs store room had been left unlocked and the downstairs store room had been left open with the door keys in the lock. We spoke with the provider about our findings who then took action to address both areas immediately

Is the service effective?

Staff told us told us that the staff team all worked well together to provide a good standard of care.

All of the people spoken with said that the staff were helpful and knowledgeable about the needs of people living at the home.

We saw records to show that most of the staff had received mental health awareness training to help make sure peoples mental health needs were responded to effectively.

We found processes were in place for staff to be supported in the home. However we found that the provider needed to make sure there are up to date records to show that staff were being regularly supported.

Is the service caring?

The atmosphere in the home felt relaxed and friendly. From our observations we saw that care staff had a good understanding of people's individual needs and personalities. We saw staff being kind and sensitive in their approach to people using the service.

We observed that people looked well cared for and were appropriately dressed.

All of the people we spoke with who were living at the home indicated that they were happy and had everything they needed. Comments included: 'It's a lovely home here', 'The staff are really good and kind".

We spoke with a visiting relative about the care being provided at the home and they said, 'The staff are helpful and easy to talk to. They manage my wife's condition very well. In comparison to other places this is 10 out of 10. I'd hate to think of her being somewhere else'.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that where appropriate the service had accessed advice and care from other health care professionals. For example we saw evidence of visits from the GP and community psychiatric nurse (CPN). This meant the provider sought relevant professional advice and guidance appropriately.

People were made aware of the complaints system. A copy of the complaints policy was displayed in the home and was presented to people in a format they would understand. Records of complaints we saw had been effectively resolved in a timely way.

A visiting relative said, 'When the need arises they always sort things out quickly here'.

Is the service well-led?

The provider, who is the registered manager, is a registered general nurse (RGN) and registered mental nurse (RMN) and was described by staff as approachable and supportive.

The provider works at the home daily and is included in the staff duty rota.

A member of staff spoken with told us 'The staff team is settled and the atmosphere is much better now.' Another member of staff said 'We are like a big family, everybody works well together here'.

We saw customer surveys had been sent out recently to people who used the service and their representatives. The survey was in a format that people could understand. We reviewed responses from the latest survey. Comments included, "I am very happy with my dad's care- he is very well looked after' and 'My room is nice and it is kept clean. I could bring my own things from home including my bed sheets and pictures'.

Healthcare professionals who visited the home said "I find residents are encouraged to be as independent as possible" and described the home as "A well run, caring environment. Staff are knowledgeable and approachable". A relative of a person living at the home said "I am very happy with [my relative's] care. He is very well looked after. I am always made to feel welcome". The home was undergoing a programme of refurbishment at the time of our inspection. One person commented "My room is nice and it is kept clean and I could bring my own things from home including my sheets and pictures".

The provider had a complaints policy in place. No complaints had been received since the last inspection. A suggestions box was available for people to provide feedback and this could be done anonymously if they so wished. The provider held regular residents meetings and carried out annual satisfaction surveys.

We looked at the care records of four people living at the home. We found that records were not always accurately maintained.