You are here

Woodhill House Home for Older People Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 28 July 2018

The inspection visit took place on 07 and 08 June 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. This meant people living at Woodhill House Home for Older People, their relatives, the registered manager and staff working there didn’t know we were visiting.

Woodhill House Home for Older People is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Woodhill House Home for Older People provides accommodation and residential care for up to 46 people. It is a two-story building located in a quiet residential area of Morecambe. At the time of our inspection visit there were 43 people who lived at the home. People who live at Woodhill House Home for Older People are older people who may be living with dementia. It is a local authority residential home and is currently divided into four areas or suites. One of the suites is residential, providing care for people who have no mental health needs. The other three suites support people that require personal care and mental health support.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

At our last inspection in February 2016 the service was rated as good. At this inspection visit carried out in June 2018, we found the registered provider did not consistently ensure all staff working unsupervised at the home had received training on safeguarding people who may be vulnerable from abuse. This was a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014 – Safe care and treatment.

Care plans and information compiled to share with health professionals did not always contain clear, up to date and accurate information on people’s medical, emotional and physical needs and choices.

Although auditing systems were in place, systems and processes were not consistently implemented to ensure compliance with the Regulations. This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014 – Good governance.

We looked at recruitment procedures to ensure people were supported by suitably qualified and experienced staff. Records we viewed did not consistently have a full employment history included. We have made a recommendation about this.

We looked at a sample of records related to the administration and storage of medicines and observed a staff member administering medicines. Stock totals on site did not consistently match documented totals. It was difficult to assess how much medicine one person had received when they self-administered it with an inhaler. We have made a recommendation about this.

Relatives told us staff treated their family members as individuals and delivered personalised care that was centred on them as an individual. We saw evidence that people were supported to access healthcare professionals when required.

Staff delivered end of life care that promoted people’s preferred priorities of care.

The registered provider had dementia friendly signage around the home to ensure people were living in an environment that promoted their safety, independence and positive wellbeing.

We saw staff were responsive to each person’s changing needs. They worked together to ensure people who became agitated were offered support to meet their needs and soothe their agitation.

We saw evidence that indicated people had the opportunity to participate in regular activities to promote their physical and emotional wellbeing.

There were systems to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

The registered provider had not consistently followed processes and practices to ensure staff had been trained to safeguard people who may be vulnerable. They had not actively worked with others to make sure that care and treatment remained safe for people.

The registered provider had not consistently followed procedures for the safe management of medicines.

Recruitment documentation did not always include a full employment history.

Accidents and incidents were monitored and managed appropriately, with an emphasis on learning when things went wrong.

Staffing levels and staff deployment was structured and appropriate. Staff were observed using protective equipment to combat the spread of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient to meet their needs and preferences.

People’s rights were protected, in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

There was evidence of staff supervisions and ongoing support. Staff received training to meet people’s needs.

People had access to healthcare professionals when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was Caring.

People and relatives told us staff were caring and their dignity and privacy was respected.

Observations during our inspection visit showed people were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.

Staff knew the individual likes and dislikes of people who received support and the care given reflected these.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans did not consistently reflect people’s current needs.

The registered provider ensured people were supported to engage in activities they enjoyed and valued.

The registered provider held information on people’s preferences on how they would be supported with their end of life care. Staff could share strategies on how to provide people with a comfortable dignified death.

There was a complaints policy in place, which enabled people to raise issues of concern.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was not always well –led

Quality assurance systems were not always effective in identifying areas of concern.

The registered provider had developed positive working relationships with the staff. They fostered an open and transparent way of working to develop a positive working culture at the home.

Staff could explain their roles and responsibilities and told us they were able to approach management if they needed advice or clarity.

The registered provider sought feedback from people to improve the service provided.