All inspections: Woods Court Residential Care Home for Older People

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 9 June 2016. Woods Court Residential Care Home for Older People provides accommodation for people who require personal care, for up to 49 people. Respite services were also provided. On the day of our inspection 25 people were using the service and there was 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.

During out previous inspection on 24 July 2015 we identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was in relation to the management of people’s medicines and the management of the home. During this inspection we checked to see whether improvements had been made. We found they had in both areas.

People’s medicines were now managed safely and medicine administration records were completed appropriately. Processes were in place to reduce the risk of people experiencing abuse. Risks to people’s safety were continually assessed and reviewed. People were able to lead their lives without unnecessary restrictions on their freedom. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

Staff were well trained, received regular supervision of their work and were encouraged to undertake professional qualifications in adult social care. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, had been followed when decisions were made about people’s care. People enjoyed the food that was provided for them and people were referred to dieticians where additional support was needed. People’s day to day health needs were met by staff. A visiting healthcare professional spoke highly of the way staff supported people. Referrals to relevant health services were made where needed.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. Staff understood people’s needs and listened to and acted upon their views. People’s privacy and dignity were maintained and staff spoke with them in a respectful way. People told us staff respected the decisions they made about their about their care. People’s records did not always record that people had been involved with these decisions. Some care records contained details about people’s life history and preferences but others, who were staying at the home for a shorter period of time did not. People were provided with information about how they could access independent advocates. People’s friends and relatives were able to visit whenever they wanted to.

People spoke positively about the activities provided at the home. Regular reviews of people’s care were carried out to ensure they met people’s current needs. People were provided with the information they needed if they wished to make a complaint.

The registered manager had made improvements to the service since the last inspection. This included the implementation of robust quality assurance processes. Staff spoke positively about the registered manager, however people who used the service and their relatives felt the registered manager was not always visible at the home. Staff understood what was expected of them in their role.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 24 July 2015. Woods Court Residential Care Home for Older People provides accommodation for persons who require personal care, for up to 49 people. Respite services were also provided. On the day of our inspection 33 people were using the service and there was 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.

People’s medicines were stored and handled safely, however in the records that we looked at we saw they did not contain information about the way people liked to take their medicines. There were no protocols in place for people who received their medicines on an ‘as needed’ basis.

The risk to people experiencing abuse at the home was reduced because staff had received training on safeguarding of adults, could identify the different types of abuse and knew who to report concerns to. Accidents and incidents were investigated; however the registered manager did not always record any actions to be taken to reduce the risk to people’s safety.

Some people and relatives felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs whereas others felt there were not. Throughout the inspection staff were available to support people where needed. Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place for all people and these were regularly reviewed.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The DoLS are part of the MCA. They aim to make sure that people are looked after in a way that does not restrict their freedom. The safeguards should ensure that a person is only deprived of their liberty in a safe and correct way, and that this is only done when it is in the best interests of the person and there is no other way to look after them. The registered manager had applied the principles of the MCA and DoLS appropriately and was making further applications for more people to the authorising body.

People were supported by staff who had received the appropriate training to support people effectively. People spoke positively about the food they received and staff provided specially adapted equipment to support people who wished to eat and drink independently. People, who had been identified as being at risk of malnutrition or dehydration, had their food and fluid intake regularly monitored. People had regular access to their GP and other health care professionals.

People were supported by staff who were caring but some people and their relatives felt the staff did not have the time to sit and talk to them. Some staff did not engage with people when they were carrying out tasks near to them. People were supported to access an independent advocate if they wished to. There were no restrictions on friends and relatives visiting their family members. People could have privacy when needed and there was sufficient space for people be alone if they wanted to be.

People and their relatives were involved with the planning of the care and support provided. Care plans were written in a way that focused on people’s choices and preferences. Adjustments had been made to the service to support people living with dementia. Regular reviews of people’s assessed needs were conducted to ensure staff responded appropriately, although these were not always completed as often as required according to people’s care records. Some people told us they felt bored and were unable to access the activities and hobbies that interested them. A complaints procedure was in place and people felt confident in using it.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to contribute to decisions to improve and develop the service. Staff understood the values and aims of the service and were aware of how they could contribute to reduce the risk to people’s health and safety. Some people and their relatives spoke positively about the registered manager whereas others were not aware who they were. The registered manager was aware of their regulatory responsibilities.

There was a lack of regular quality monitoring by the registered manager.

We identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see the action we have told the provider to take at the back of this report.

Prior to our visit we reviewed all the information we had received from the provider. During the visit we spoke with eight people who used the service and a relative and asked them for their views. We also spoke with 4 care workers and three team leaders. We looked at some of the records held in the service including the care files for four people, and observed the support people who used the service received from staff. We visited each of the five units, but centred our inspection on the unit that catered for people with dementia and the unit designed to support people to return home.

We found where people were able to they gave consent to their care and support and received care and support that met their needs. A person told us, 'They (staff) let me do what I can for myself. They have got things right in this place.'

We found there were suitable arrangements for the management of medicines. A relative told us, 'Staff wait with them till it (the tablet) has gone, they make sure it is taken.'

We found the provider had taken steps to ensure there were sufficient and suitable staff available. One person told us, 'If I need anything and staff are not here I ring the bell (call bell) and someone comes pretty quickly.'

We found people's comments and complaints were acted upon. A person told us about a complaint they had made and said, 'I was told they would get it sorted, and they did so.'

People spoke of being involved in discussing their care. One person said, 'We talked about most things in my care plan.' We saw people had signed their care plans to show they were in agreement with them. One person said when we looked in their file, 'Yes that's my signature, I always add a bit so I know it's me! '

People gave examples of how they were encouraged to maintain their independence. One person told us, 'I wash and dress myself. I try to keep my independence as much as I can.' Someone else told us, 'I can dress and undress myself, sometimes with a little bit of help. When they have washed my back I can manage the rest.'

People we spoke with had a clear understanding of their needs and felt they were treated with respect. One person told us they needed some assistance with their personal care and said, 'They don't make me feel embarrassed or anything.' Another person said, 'I was asked twice if it was OK to have a man help me.' We were also told by another person staff always knocked before entering their room. They said there was, 'usually a tap on the door and I say come in.'

One person we discussed their care with told us, 'I feel looked after properly. Staff are always polite. If I want anything I can get it. I may have to wait a little but you have to wait in life.'

People told us they had their care plans in their rooms. One person said, 'I've got a book in my room in a plastic folder.' We discussed this with the person who said, 'I was explained the purpose of me coming here, they will get me back home.'

People also told us how their health care needs were met. One person told us, 'I have been told why the district nurses come to treat me and the staff cannot do it. I know when they are coming. I started doing my own medication yesterday. I have it checked. They are helping me get into a routine for going home.' Another person told us, 'I had a fall this morning, I am a bit shaken up, they always check to make sure I am alright.

People told us they felt they had opportunities to take part in activities. One person told us, 'I like to watch TV then have a nap. We don't want a lot to do, we are slowing down a bit!' Someone else told us, 'We had a game of skittle in the garden which was nice.' We were also told, 'They have time for me. Little bits and bobs happen which passes the time.'

We asked five people if they felt safe in the home and they all said they did. One person told us, 'I feel safe here. I only have to press a buzzer and they (staff) are there to help you.' Someone else said, 'All the staff are very kind, every one of them. They are never rude.'

People told us they thought the staff were all very good at their job and they trusted them. One person told us, 'I can't fault them, I don't know how they do it they are always so cheerful.' Another person said, 'They seem very trained to me. No quick nasty answers, always very obliging.'

Another person commented they thought staff were very professional the way they hoisted them out of bed in the mornings.

People told us they felt involved in the running of the home and were able to put forward their ideas. One person said, 'I am able to make suggestions, we have meetings. They always listen. Staff do what they say they will.'

Another person told us, 'Staff are very nice. Very polite, never heard a wrong word yet, not even in anger. They are very patient.' A person who had reached the end of their stay at the home told us, 'It has been very nice, tip top service.'

These older reports are from our old approaches to inspection, including those from before CQC was created.

Archived: Woods Court Residential Care Home for Older People

All Inspections

9 June 2016

During a routine inspection

24 July 2015

During a routine inspection

6 June 2013

During a routine inspection

12 June 2012

During a routine inspection

Reports under our old system of regulation