Woodland Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Accidents and incidents were usually recorded in the organisations electronic recording system. This was regularly reviewed by the registered manager and, if more serious, the provider’s health and safety team. We identified two events, which occurred on the same day, that had been recorded in an individuals’ records but not in the incident records. This meant opportunities to learn from the events and make any changes to mitigate future risk to people and staff may have been lost.

There was no system for completing and recording formal debrief meetings with staff following any incidents. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would offer staff debrief meetings in the future.

However, staff told us they were confident supporting people at all times and felt lessons were learned. One commented, “Nothing is brushed aside, everyone is involved in the learning process.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The service communicated with external agencies to help ensure continuity of care. For example, there was key information available for ambulance crews, paramedics and hospital staff if people needed to be admitted to hospital unexpectedly.

The provider had not always ensured people were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act. Capacity assessments had not been consistently completed when required. However, the provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while ensuring their safety. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The service generally worked in line with the requirements laid down in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Mental capacity assessments had been completed prior to submitting DoLS applications. When conditions were attached to DoLS authorisations these were complied with. However, we identified one occasion when a decision had been made, in discussion with a relative, which impacted on people’s personal relationship. No capacity assessment had been completed relating to this decision and the best interest process had not been followed.

People, their relatives and external professionals told us they had no concerns relating to safeguarding. Comments included; “I feel this is a safe service. The security measures in place are really good and I have no concerns for the safety of any of the residents.”

Staff had completed safeguarding training and were confident about the processes to follow if they had any safeguarding concerns.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People had individual risk assessments relating to the care and support they received. These included risks relating to eating and drinking, moving and handling, skin integrity and falls. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) had been developed to inform first responders and staff of the support people would need in the event of an emergency.
External professionals told us they believed risks were well managed. One commented, “I feel risks are known and managed well, as a residential home they have some very skilled team leaders and care staff who are able to manage risks well.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Caretakers oversaw the maintenance of the premises and completed regular safety checks. A maintenance book showed any defects were recorded and quickly attended to. When necessary, contractors, employed by the provider, were brought in to complete any repairs or updates to utilities.

The environment was well maintained. There was an ongoing development plan which detailed planned works, refurbishments or general improvements to the premises.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The service was well staffed, and rotas showed planned staffing levels were routinely achieved. The registered manager told us that they had 1 vacancy which was covered by existing staff and they did not employ agency staff. Staff told us; “I would love more time but only leave a person when they are satisfied and happy” and “If someone was not well, I would speak to a senior to get help and not rush.”

We observed staff being engaged, and attentive. One member of staff commented, "Everyone deserves that person-centred care.” Staff told us if an activity was taking place in a lounge staff would visit those people who were unable to attend, or chose to stay in their rooms, and would read with them or listen to music together.

Staff received support through observations, supervisions and appraisals with their team leaders. This gave them the opportunity to discuss their role, concerns and training needs as well as personal welfare. Staff told us they felt well supported by their leaders.

Prospective staff went through a safe recruitment process which included their right to work in the UK and their fitness for the role. All staff had undergone a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check to help ensure they were suitable to work in the care sector.

All staff completed training relevant to their role and 1 member of staff told us, “I feel well trained for the role and am encouraged to think and ask questions…..We have a toolbox of learning and can always lean on the team.”
 

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The environment was clean and tidy. Cleaning schedules showed daily, monthly and deep cleans were completed throughout the service. The kitchen was clean and had a food hygiene rating of 5. Daily checks of fridge and freezer temperatures were completed. There was an up-to-date policy on the control of infection, prevention and control (IPC) which staff could refer to if needed.
Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) to use when carrying out personal care.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff were aware of peoples’ care needs and the signs and symptoms which indicated people required medication.

The provider had medicines policies and procedures and had invested in an electronic medicines system.

Medicines were stored securely and staff monitored temperatures of areas used to store medicines, to ensure they were kept within the recommended range. Medicines were managed by staff who had received training and had their competency assessed.

People’s medicines were regularly reviewed and care plans contained detailed information to support staff to meet people’s needs. Protocols for ‘as required’ medicines (PRN) had been developed, these guided staff to record why PRN had been given and whether it had been effective.

Medicine audits were completed and any discrepancies acted upon. Medicines that required additional storage security, such as controlled drugs, were audited twice a day. Audits by managers were carried out weekly, every Friday, and were consistently completed.