Archived: Woodleaze EMI Residential Care 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.

We were introduced to people throughout our visits and they welcomed us. People were relaxed, comfortable and confident in their home. We received positive comments about people’s views and experiences throughout our visits. Two relatives recently wrote in the homes survey, “We as a family are very happy with the care mum receives from all the managers and carers. Woodleaze is a wonderful care home” and “Mother is very happy here, everyone is very friendly and helpful, which is a great bonus in the home. Absolutely fantastic support”.

Staff involved in this inspection demonstrated a genuine passion for the roles they performed and individual responsibilities. Visions and plans for the future were understood and shared across the staff team. They embraced new initiatives with the support of the registered manager and colleagues. They continued to look at the needs of people who used the service and ways to improve these so that people felt able to make positive changes.

People experienced a lifestyle that met their individual expectations, capacity and preferences. There was a strong sense of empowering people wherever possible and providing facilities where independence would be encouraged and celebrated. People’s health, well-being and safety were paramount.

The registered manager listened to people and staff to ensure there were enough staff to meet people's needs. They demonstrated their responsibilities in recognising changing circumstances within the service and used a risk based approach to help ensure that staffing levels and skill mix was effective.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively. They enjoyed attending training sessions and sharing what they had learnt with colleagues. There was an emphasis on teamwork and unison amongst all staff at all levels.

People were supported to enjoy a healthy, nutritious, balanced diet whilst promoting and respecting choice. One person visiting told us, “The food is marvellous and very good quality. I have eaten meals here and it’s as good as our local pub”.

Staff had a good awareness of individuals' needs and treated people in a warm and respectful manner. They were knowledgeable about people's lives before they started using the service. Every effort was made to enhance this knowledge so that their life experiences remained meaningful. People were supported to maintain their personal interests and hobbies.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their advocates or families and healthcare professionals were involved in making decisions.

People received appropriate care and support because there were effective systems in place to assess, plan, implement, monitor and evaluate people's needs. People were involved throughout these processes. This ensured their needs were clearly identified and the support they received was meaningful and personalised.

Regular monitoring and reviews meant that referrals had been made to appropriate health and social care professionals and where necessary care and support had been changed to accurately reflect people's needs.

People, relative and staff feedback was a vital part of the quality assurance system either through annual surveys, ‘residents’ meetings, complaints or reviews. They were listened to and action was taken to make improvements to their quality of life. The registered manager monitored and audited the quality of care provided striving to meet the ever changing needs of people living in the home.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, seeking experience and views from people who use the service and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

The service is a local authority home. They were in the process of consultation with regards to possible future closure of the home.

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

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and 'in good hands'. One person said 'I feel very safe here and I know that the staff care about me'.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. There were effective systems in place where people did not have capacity and best interest decisions were made through a multi-agency approach.

People's health and welfare was protected and promoted because the service sought expertise and support from other health and social care services that people required in order to meet their needs effectively.

People were safe because the manager ensured there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The manager was able to demonstrate their responsibilities in recognising changing circumstances within the service and used a risk based approach to help ensure that staffing levels and the staff skill mix was effective.

Is the service effective?

People received appropriate care and support because there were effective systems in place to assess, plan, implement, monitor and evaluate people's needs. People were involved throughout these processes. This ensured their needs were clearly identified and the support they received was meaningful and person centred.

Regular monitoring and reviews meant that referrals had been made to appropriate health and social care professionals and where necessary care and support had been changed to accurately reflect people's needs.

Is it caring?

People and their relatives told us staff were caring and kind. Comments included 'They are all angels', 'I see the way they interact with mum, so sensitive and warm', 'It's refreshing to see happy staff who enjoy what they do', 'This is a lovely place to live, it's my home. The staff are wonderful and I have made some good friends' and 'I cannot fault the staff, I feel reassured seeing my relative so happy and well'.

Staff had a good awareness of individuals' needs and treated people in a warm and respectful manner. We spoke with staff and asked them about their experiences with the people they supported. Comments included 'The residents mean everything to us, we want them to be happy and feel special', 'It's a pleasure to come to work and I go home feeling accomplished' and 'I feel we make a difference and people are treated like family'

The manager, team leader and staff were knowledgeable about people's lives before they started using the service. Every effort was made to enhance this knowledge so that their life experiences remained meaningful.

Is the service responsive?

Systems were in place to make sure staff learnt from significant events including accidents and incidents. Audits helped determine why a particular incident may have happened and what further action was required to help prevent reoccurrence.

People using the service and their relatives completed surveys and attended meetings throughout the year. Where suggestions and ideas were raised these were addressed and welcomed by the manager.

The systems in place for auditing the service were effective. We saw evidence where improvements had been made as a result of the audits that were completed.

Is the service well led?

Following a recent visit to the home by the Alzheimer's Society they wrote 'The staff are very aware of the consultation process and possible closure of the home and are obviously feeling anxious and sad about the future and yet there was no evidence that residents were feeling their anxiety or concerns. This is a credit to the staff team who remain professional and upbeat, continuing to provide the best possible care in a difficult situation'.

It was evident in discussions with everyone involved in this inspection that the home was proactive in wanting to strive for excellence in the services they provided and expressed their aims and objectives on how they will continue to help achieve this.

The manager and staff continued to look at the needs of people who used the service and ways to improve these so that people felt empowered to make positive changes.

People living at Woodleaze all had a diagnosis of a dementia. Clear information was in place about people's abilities to make decisions. Information had been recorded to show if people were able or not to give consent for the support and treatment affecting their health and care.

Relatives of people using the service told us that they were consulted about people's care plans and that staff contacted them to check if they were happy with the level of care their relative received.

People's special dietary needs were being met and had been recorded within care plans and risk assessments.

We found that staff were very clear about what action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse. Staff had completed training in this area and had clear policies and procedures to guide their practice.

We found evidence that the provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of their service. Records about people, their needs and how staff were expected to support them were well written, sufficiently detailed, kept under review and updated when required.

The provider had a clear statement of purpose in place which set out the aims and objectives of the service.