Archived: Woodcote Residential Home

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

We carried out this inspection because concerns had been raised about the care people received in another service managed by Guinness Care and Support and we wanted to make sure there were no similar concerns about the care at Woodcote.

At the time of this inspection there were four people living at Woodcote. Two people were out for the day and two people were at home. The two people who were at home had limited communication skills and therefore we were unable to obtain their views about the care they received. We spoke with three staff about their care needs, read their care files and observed the care and support they received during the day. This summary is based on our observations and the evidence we found during the inspection.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The provider ensured there were enough staff on duty with the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience required to ensure people's needs were met. People were supported by a stable and experienced staff team, many of whom had worked there for a number of years. The staff we spoke with knew the people living there and understood the care and support they needed.

The provider understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). None of the people living at the home at the time of this inspection were subject to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This legislation protects people's rights when they are unable to make decisions about their own welfare.

The home had suitable arrangements in place to assess any potential risks to people's health and to put in place measures to minimise those risks where necessary.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and their care plans had been regularly reviewed and updated. Specialist advice had been sought where necessary and staff were able to explain the advice received and how they followed the advice. This showed that people were having care delivered effectively or in accordance with their assessed needs.

It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by staff who were understanding and sensitive to their needs. We saw that staff offered choice and waited for responses. The staff explained how they observed body language and understood individual preferences. The two people we observed appeared comfortable and relaxed. This told us that staff took the time to understand and communicate with people despite their disability.

Is the service responsive?

We heard how the provider had learnt from the concerns raised in another home by taking prompt action in all of their care homes for adults with learning disabilities to prevent similar problems arising. We heard they were about to review each of the four care plan files at Woodcote in the next week to ensure the information in the files is presented in a format that is easy to follow.

People had been given information about the complaints policy in an easy to read format. However, it was not clear what arrangements had been put in place for those people who were unable to read, to make sure they understood how to make a complaint, or to make sure they had relatives or advocates who knew how to raise a complaint on their behalf.

Is the service well-led?

The provider has told the Commission they plan to move from residential care and instead they propose to provide supported living service in the future. The registered manager left the home several months ago. At the time of this inspection the staff team were managed by a team leader and there was also regular monitoring of the home provided by senior managers.

The local authority told us about a safeguarding concern. The provider failed to notify the Commission of this concern. We followed this up at this inspection and were satisfied the concern was appropriately investigated and dealt with.

We found the home was clean and non-institutional with items, such as pictures, in the community areas that reflected the interests and taste of the people who live there. We looked at the records and found that staff regularly carried out standard health and safety checks. Staff explained how they were recruited and described the steps that the provider took to ensure that only appropriate staff worked at the home. We met three members of staff, one of whom had only just started to work at Woodcote and one who had been working there for many years.

Staff told us that the home had applied to de-register from the Care Quality Commission and that the provider was planning that Woodcote will become a supported living house. It was suggested that the same four people, and possibly another two people, would continue to live at Woodcote under the new arrangements. In preparation for this change the registered manager had accepted voluntary redundancy. Other staff anticipated that they would be continuing in employment but with new job titles and roles.

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. One person told us 'I've wanted to go out walking into town, and I go.' We saw their care plan included arrangements to ensure their welfare when they went out on their own. Comments on surveys completed by people's representatives included 'People are treated as individuals' and 'X is treated like an adult.'

People experienced support that met their needs and protected their rights, being cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. They were safeguarded because the provider had taken reasonable steps to prevent the possibility of abuse. One person told us that they felt safe with the staff, adding "The staff are good people." We saw that other people were at ease with staff.

One person told us "If you have any problems, they [the staff] sort it." We saw the provider had effective systems to assess the service's quality and manage risks to people who used the service and others, with people's views and experiences taken into account in the way the service was delivered.