You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 March 2018

Woodcrofts is a residential care home located in Widnes close to local amenities such as bus routes and shops. It is owned by Woodcrofts residential homes limited. The home is a two storey building with 19 bedrooms, shared bathrooms and three communal lounges. The home specialises in providing accommodation and support for people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, there were 16 people living in the home.

At the last inspection on the 16 September 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good however we changed the rating under well-led to Requires Improvement because the governance procedures did not always reflect the quality of care being delivered. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

A registered manager was in post at the service. The registered manager was also the registered provider of the service and was supported by a deputy manager and a senior carer. 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 provider had systems and processes in place to ensure that staff who worked at the service were recruited safely. People were supported by a consistent staff team, many of whom had worked at the home for a number of years. We observed there was enough staff employed to meet people’s needs.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm and abuse. Staff understood the reporting procedures including how to raise concerns with their line manager as well as reporting to other organisations such as the Local Authority or CQC.

A risk screening tool was completed which assessed any risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing. Identified risks were managed in a manner that promoted both independence and safety.

Risks associated with the safety of the environment and equipment were identified and managed appropriately. Medication was stored securely and administered by staff who had received the appropriate training.

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 supported this practice. Staff and the registered manager maintained a clear focus on people’s autonomy to live their lives as they chose. The registered manager described the support they provided as akin to “an invisible safety net to enable people to live as independent lives as possible.”

The service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and we saw this guidance was taken into consideration when care plans were developed. There was no Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place at the time of our inspection.

People were supported to maintain good health and the registered manager often accompanied people to routine appointments. Care records showed that staff sought the input of health and social care professionals when needed. We spoke to two visiting health professionals during our inspection who told us that staff ‘go above and beyond’ and were prompt in recognising any deterioration in health or changes to people’s support needs.

Staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to support people in the way they needed and had a good understanding of the individual needs of the people living at the home. Staff spoken with felt they received sufficient training to enable them to complete their role effectively. The registered provider’s records showed staff required refresher training in some topics and we saw that this was either in process or scheduled.

People told us they enjoyed the food served at the home. Care records showed staff had given consideration to people’s nutritional needs and diabetic diets were catered to.

Everyone we spoke with, without exception, spoke positively about the registered manager and the staff. We observed kind and natural interactions between staff and the people they supported.

People maintained their independence and chose how to spend their leisure time. People were supported to access the local community if they required it but the majority enjoyed frequent access to the local community, pubs and shops without staff assistance. This ensured that people's individuality, choice and freedom was respected and promoted.

People who used the service had experienced enduring mental health conditions which were recognised, understood and supported by staff in a highly person centred way. Records showed and feedback demonstrated that people were supported to live as independently as possible in the local community and this had improved their outcomes and minimised their use of crisis mental health services.

People had access to a complaints policy but those we spoke with told us they had no cause to make a complaint and if they needed to, they would just “knock on the office and speak to [registered manager].” The registered provider’s records showed there had been no recent complaints.

Staff we spoke with were able to describe the visions and values of the service, and felt supported by registered manager in delivering them. One staff member told us their focus was, “To promote independence whilst ensuring people are safe and happy.”

There were opportunities for people and their relatives to provide feedback regarding the home and contribute to service delivery through the use of annual surveys. People told us they could approach the registered manager or staff at any time and felt they would be listened to.

We observed people who used the service approach the registered manager with ease and a sense of familiarity. Staff spoken with told us the registered manager was ‘brilliant’, ‘supportive’ and as someone they could “approach with anything.”

We noted that the registered provider’s documentation was not always reflective of the quality of the care being delivered at the service. We identified that some governance procedures to assess and monitor the quality of the home were not documented. We did not receive a Provider Information Return from the service and identified one incident which had not been notified to us in accordance with our statutory requirements. The registered manager was clearly very 'hands on' in their approach and took an active role in the daily lives of all the people using the service but admitted this sometimes meant that paperwork was not always completed most effectively. The registered manager acknowledged this as an area for further development.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 March 2018

The service remains Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 March 2018

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 March 2018

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 March 2018

The service remains Good.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 27 March 2018

The service has deteriorated to requires improvement as the service was not consistently well-led.