We carried out a review of the data available to us about Wood Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Wood Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The registered manager and support team worked co-operatively with tenants and other people in their network, to ensure the spread of COVID-19 was minimised.
Policies and processes were in place to ensure infection control was prioritised in communal areas, and enhanced cleaning taking place on a daily basis by the housing provider. Tenants were supported to practice good infection control processes in their own flats. Staff were trained in infection control management and had been supported tenants to test regularly. There was no use of agency staff and regular bank staff were used to support during staff absences.
The provider and registered manager were aware of the legal requirement for staff to be vaccinated by 1 April 2022, and had plans in place to support staff to achieve this.
We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines and had no concerns regarding the management of COVID-19.
Wood Court provides a support and care service for up to 39 people over the age of 55 living in self- contained one-bedroom flats. The service is delivered within an extra care housing scheme commissioned by the London Borough of Barnet by care staff who are on site 24 hours a day. The Care Quality Commission regulates the personal care service provided to tenants. On the day of our inspection there were 29 people receiving a personal care service.
Not everyone using the service receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided
People’s experience of using this service
People told us people they were very happy living at the scheme because they felt safe and all their needs were met by kind and caring staff.
People praised the managers of the service and agreed that they were approachable, knowledgeable, fair and did their job well. The staff team worked well together and supported the registered manager.
The staff team was committed to providing a high-quality service and keeping people safe. They had undertaken training so that they were skilled and knowledgeable to effectively meet people’s needs. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.
Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible and respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff knew people well. Staff managed the risks to people’s health and welfare.
People were given choices about the way in which they were cared for. Staff listened to them and knew their needs well.Care plans contained detailed information about each person’s individual support needs and preferences in relation to their care and we found evidence of good outcomes for people. When people did not have the capacity to make their own decisions, staff maximised their involvement and made decisions in their best interests, in accordance with legislation.
Staffing levels were enough to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the service.
Medicines were managed safely.
People continued to receive a service that was responsive to their individual needs and preferences. Some people had complex needs and staff involved other professionals, to ensure they gained a full understanding of the factors influencing each person and further developed an individualised approach to their care. They had access to a range of activities and were encouraged to participate in events in the local community.
The managers of the service actively sought the views of people and their relatives about the running of the scheme and they dealt promptly with any concerns that people raised.
The provider had a number of systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.
More information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection
At the last inspection we rated this service Good. The report was published on 21 December 2016.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor this service.
Wood Court provides a support and care service run by Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited for up to 39 people over the age of 55 living in self- contained one bedroom flats. The service is delivered within an extra care housing scheme commissioned by the London Borough of Barnet by care staff who are on site 24 hours a day. The Care Quality Commission regulates the personal care service provided to residents by Metropolitan Housing Trust . On the day of our inspection there were 30 people receiving a personal care service
The service had a new manager who was in the process of becoming registered by the Care Quality Commission 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 needs were assessed and care plans were developed to identify what care and support people required. People said they were involved in their care planning and were happy to express their views or raise concerns. When people’s needs changed, this was quickly identified and prompt, appropriate action was taken to ensure people’s well-being was protected. People had a copy of their care plan in their home.
People felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise the signs and symptoms of potential abuse and told us they would report any concerns they may have to their manager. Assessments were undertaken to assess any risks to the people using the service and the staff supporting them. This included environmental risks and any risks due to people’s health and support needs. The risk assessments we viewed included information about action to be taken to minimise these risks.
Staff were highly motivated and proud to work for the service; as a result staff turnover was kept to a minimum ensuring that continuity of care was in place for most people who used the service.
Staff were respectful of people’s privacy and maintained their dignity. Staff told us they gave people privacy whilst they undertook aspects of personal care, asking people how they would like things done and making enquiries as to their well-being to ensure people were comfortable.
Care staff received regular supervision and appraisal from their manager. These processes gave staff an opportunity to discuss their performance and identify any further training they required. Care and support workers we spoke with placed a high value on their supervision.
There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to care for the number of people living at the service.
We saw that regular visits had been made by the office staff to people using the service and their relatives in order to obtain feedback about the staff and the care provided.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA.The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).We found that the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and there were no authorisations to deprive people of their liberty.
The management team provided good leadership and people using the service, relatives and staff told us they were approachable, visible and supportive. We saw that regular audits were carried out by the provider to monitor the quality of care
People were supported to eat and drink, and there was a lunch club available on the premises. Staff supported people to take their medicines when required and attend healthcare appointments.
The service had a complaints policy. People who used the service told us they knew how to make a complaint if needed.